Watching child porn in public is not free speech, says SC

February 27, 2016

New Delhi, Feb 27: Watching child pornography cannot be allowed in the name of liberty or freedom of expression, the Supreme Court said on Friday, even as the Centre informed that an exercise to block such contents on the Internet has been undertaken.stop-child-porn

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh asked Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand to take suggestions from the National Commission for Women and others in helping the government prepare a scheme to ban child pornography.

The court said there was a distinction between art and obscenity and pornography cannot be allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression as this is not an absolute right.

SC Women Lawyers Association, represented by senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, urged the court to ensure prohibition of watching child pornography at public places, saying it has become a moral cancer as reports of school bus drivers and helpers forcing children to watch such materials and molesting them have come to light.

Concurring with her plea, the bench said, “Children need to be protected from this kind of moral assaults as it has the potentiality to bring them physical disasters.”

The bench further said: “Children cannot be made prey to these kind of painful situations, and a nation, by no means, can afford to carry any kind of experiment with its children in the name of liberty and freedom of expression. When we say nation, we mean each member of the collective.”

The court asked the Centre to file an affidavit suggesting ways and means to curb child pornography.

The law officer said that it was difficult to ban all websites containing pornographic materials on internet.

Advocate Vijay Panjwani, appearing for petitioner Kamlesh Vaswani, submitted that watching pornography or being compelled for it can never come within the definition of freedom of speech and expression as mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Rather, it may attract penal provision, he added.

During the hearing, the court also said at times people may find something as objectionable while others may call it art. It put the matter for further consideration on March 28.

Comments

Mia
 - 
Tuesday, 15 Mar 2016

Hi there to every body, it's my first visit of this weblog;
this webpage includes remarkable and really good data
designed for readers.

Also visit my page :: porno: http://www.pornoheroes.com

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 18,2020

New Delhi, Jan 18: Asha Devi, the mother of the 2012 Delhi gang-rape victim, on Saturday slammed senior lawyer Indira Jaising for her suggestion that she should forgive her daughter's rapists.

"Who is Indira Jaising to give me such a suggestion? The whole country wants the convicts to be executed. Just because of people like her, justice is not done with rape victims," Asha Devi said here.

"Cannot believe how Indira Jaising even dared to suggest this. I met her many times over the years in Supreme Court, not even once has she asked for my well being and today she is speaking for the convicts. Such people earn their livelihoods by supporting rapists, hence rape incidents do not stop," she added.

Asha Devi further accused Jaising of using "the garb of human rights" to make a living.

'People like her keep earning money under the garb of human rights. I do not need her suggestions... Just because of people who think like her incidents like rape keep happening, she is a disgrace to women," she said.

Earlier yesterday, Indira Jaising, through a tweet, had urged Asha Devi to forgive the perpetrators and had used the example of Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi, who had forgiven Nalini, one of the convicts who was given the death penalty by the courts.

"While I fully identify with the pain of Asha Devi I urge her to follow the example of Sonia Gandhi who forgave Nalini and said she did not want the death penalty for her. We are with you but against the death penalty," Jaising's tweet read.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 2,2020

New Delhi, Jun 2: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday took a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over Moody's Investors Service downgrading India's sovereign rating to the lowest investment rate and said that the global rating agency has rated his handling of the country's economy "a step above junk".

"Moody's has rated Modi's handling of India's economy a step above JUNK. Lack of support to the poor and the MSME sector means the worst is yet to come," the Congress leader tweeted citing a media report on Moody's downgrading the nation.

On Monday, Moody's downgraded the country's rating to "Baa3" from "Baa2". This comes at a time when the government is facing criticism from the Opposition over its handling of the COVID-19 situation and measures to boost the economy.

The government has already announced a stimulus package of Rs 20 lakh crore to deal with the situation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 22,2020

New Delhi, Jun 22: The Delhi Police Monday urged the Delhi High Court to grant them a day’s more time for seeking instructions on a plea by Jamia student Safoora Zargar, who was pregnant and arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA--, seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, allowed the request after Zargar’s counsel said she has no objection to it and listed the matter for Tuesday.

Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought a day’s time to take instructions on the issue and said it will be in “larger interest” if he is given indulgence.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi also joined Mehta and said they are ready with the arguments on merits of the case but they do not intend to proceed on merits at this stage.

Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Zargar, said the woman is in a delicate state and is in a fairly advanced stage pregnancy and if the police need time to respond to the plea, she be granted interim bail for the time being.

The high court asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to come back with instructions on Tuesday.

The police has also filed a status report in response to the bail plea.

Jamia Coordination Committee member Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged in the high court the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.

The hearing in the high court also witnessed exchange of words between Mehta, Lekhi on one side and Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra who objected the appearance of the two senior law officers on behalf of Delhi Police in the case.

Mehra contended that unlike another North East Delhi violence matter in which requisite approval was sought by the Delhi Police to be represented by a team of lawyers led by the Solicitor General, no such procedure was followed in this case.

"They know that my view in such cases will be more humanitarian and not as per their whims and fancies. I am not supposed to be the mouth piece of the Delhi Police, I am an officer of the court," he said.

Lekhi shot back "a client chooses the lawyer and a lawyer cannot impose himself on the client.

He said this controversy would deviate the court from the issue in hand and Mehra's objection can be kept aside in this case.

The high court concluded the hearing, asking the counsel for Delhi Police to sort out their battles by tomorrow.

 The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima facie evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.

The trial court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.

The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.

It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.