Tag: 松江车墩哪有玩姑娘的地方

first_imgColumnsTen Reasons Why Prashant Bhushan Should Not Be Punished In Contempt Case Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu22 Aug 2020 3:45 AMShare This – xPrashant Bhushan should not be convicted and sentenced for Contempt of Court for following ten reasons on facts and the law. On facts: Tweet of Bhushan on June 27: “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginPrashant Bhushan should not be convicted and sentenced for Contempt of Court for following ten reasons on facts and the law. On facts: Tweet of Bhushan on June 27: “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.” Allegation is that democracy was destroyed by government, not against Judiciary. The comment is that the role of SC in this destruction will be marked by History and more particularly the role of last 4 CJIs. There is no direct accusation, but indirectly he commented that it has a role in the destruction, without any details and specific allegation against any CJI. There was no allegation of corruption. It’s at the most an adverse and critical comment. He did not write history will mark vital role of SC, the court should not have read ‘vital’ into tweet and concluded as contempt. This is unfair because not truthful. Truth of it should have been ascertained to say whether it was fair or not. Out of judgements given during six years, even if there are four or five judgements that went against democratic institutions, the comment cannot be termed as unfair. Second tweet on June 29, while sharing an image of CJI Bobde sitting on a Harley Davidson superbike, commenting that the CJI was sitting on a bike belonging to a BJP leader without a mask or helmet, at a time when the Supreme Court was “denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice” because it was in lockdown mode”. It is true that he was sitting on superbike, without mask and helmet. As he was not driving it he need not wear helmet. He did not say CJI was driving. He just said ‘sitting’ on bike. He regretted for having not noticed that bike was on stand. He correlated this sitting with activity of SC ‘denying citizens their fundamental right to access to justice because it was in lock down. There is no allegation as it was rightly said that there was no access to justice because of lockdown mode. Though some feel that this could have been avoided, the least, it could be unreasonable comment but cannot be criminalised as defamation or spreading hate and contempt. SC in its judgment rightly stated that it heard 879 sittings and 12748 petitions and judged many cases during the lockdown period through virtual hearing. Bhushan’s tweet is still true to the extent that several thousands of cases of fundamental rights, because of lock down. There was neither defamation nor degradation of judiciary. The view of SC that these tweets brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the institution of Supreme Court, is not within the four walls of ‘definition of defamation’. On law: Prashanth Bhushan cannot be convicted or punished for the following legal reasons: Duty to develop spirit of inquiry and reform: The citizens’ spirit of inquiry should be protected by the Constitutional Institutions, especially by the judiciary, because the Constitution of India Article 51A(h) mandates that “every person has a duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. If every critical analysis is threatened with prosecutions and penal sentences, how do citizens perform this duty? Freedom of Expression: The Supreme Court has helped the freedom of speech to survive in this country against suppressive actions of both Legislature and Executive, and similarly the freedom of speech of those criticise the judiciary also needs to be encouraged. The fundamental right as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) gives every citizen a right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restriction by law, (not by executive or courts) on the grounds listed in 19(2) which includes contempt of court. But the fair criticism of judicial act is not contempt as per Section 5. Fair Criticism is not contempt: The Contempt of Court Act 1971 Section 5 says: Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt. A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided. This Section read with Article 19(1)(a) of constitution of India, deserves preference. If there is any doubt, one can read preamble of the Constitution that highlighted the vow of people to constitute India to secure ‘liberty’ of expression for them.Comment on merits of case: Section 499 of IPC which defined crime of defamation, says in fifth exception: Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. If any critique makes an adverse comment on merits of a judgment, it is not considered as even criminal defamation. It is highly arbitrary to consider a comment which is not a criminal defamation, as ‘contemptuous’ also.Interference: There is another fair rule in Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act which says even if some comment is assumed to be contempt, unless it substantially interferes or tends to substantially interfere, sentence cannot be imposed. Not mere assumed interference and simple interference, but substantial interference is needed to impose penalty. Section 13 (a) says: no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. This section is highly unreasonable because of ambiguity of ‘substantially’, ‘interference’ and ‘tends’ to, all are wide open, which delegate excessive authority to ‘court’ without any guidance. Though restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) by law on the ground of ‘contempt of court’, the restriction with ambiguous and unguided power is ‘unreasonable’ and hence unconstitutional. Truth of statement: The Contempt of Court Act is amended in 2006 to introduced Section 13(b) which says: (b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide. the justification by truth as a valid defence. If the judges feel that their esteem is suffered by circulation of truth by any media, it is not punishable as contempt. Public interest is a major factor that protects the truth exposed through freedom of speech, even if it embarrasses the judges. Apology: Section 12 says that a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged, or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. Prashant Bhushan’s regret deserves consideration. This clause gives unreasonable and enormous power to the court to decide according to his ‘satisfaction’, that accorded unguided discretion which might lead to arbitrary conclusions. The language used in this clause has to be considered, ‘may be punished’, ‘may be discharged’, ‘may be remitted on apology’, as far as sentencing is concerned. When it came to apology, clause says ‘apology shall not be rejected’, if accused makes it bona fide’. These are checks and balances on power of Court to punish. This power cannot be arbitrarily exercised. It is against Indian Constitutionalism, the liberty of expression and though is a restriction on absolute powers of state actors like executive and judiciary. In the judgement of P N Duda v P Shiva Shankar 1987, which considered the comment of Shiv Shankar that SC was biased in favour of rich and against poor and held as not contemptuous. This remained law of the land declared by the SC. Prashant Bhushan made any comments as he believed that they could not be contemptuous as per Shiva Shankar case. This means there is no definition of crime of contempt of court that could cover comment of Prashant Bhushan as per existing law, hence he is protected under Article 20(1) of Constitution a fundamental right that protects a person from ex-post-fact-law.(The author is a former Central Information Commissioner and is  presently serving as a Dean, School of Law, Bennett University. Views are personal) Next Storylast_img read more

Read more

first_imgREAD: Sonoma Paint Scheme Preview READ: Power Rankings Week 15 READ: Pre-Sonoma Driver Reports “Jim (France), you will be the leader for our future in America, and you’ll be our standard-bearer this year.”— Don Panoz, founder of American Le Mans Series presented by Tequila Patron GRAND-AM Road Racing founder recalls prior visits and road-racing mergercenter_img The moment evoked thoughts and emotions that led him to three places — past, present and future.“Being here today, it reminds me of coming here in 1962 with my father, Bill France Sr. and NASCAR driver Fireball Roberts, who raced a Ferrari here,” France said. “And it reminds me of 1976 when my brother Bill France Jr. waved the starting flag in the year we had two NASCAR stock cars in Le Mans.“Regarding the present, it’s just wonderful to be here, but this is about a whole lot more than me. And finally, regarding the future, being here is an example of America’s strong relationship with the ACO, which will be so important to the new United SportsCar Racing (USCR) series that debuts next year.”The flag presentation was the focal point of a press conference at the 24 Hours of Le Mans museum. Pierre Fillon, president of the Automobile Club de l’Ouest (ACO) which stages the event, began the presentation, saying “the competition will be unleashed on Saturday by Jim France,” adding that France’s appearance continues “a long and fruitful association between Le Mans and the United States.”The presentation itself was handled by Don Panoz, founder of the American Le Mans Series (ALMS) presented by Tequila Patrón. Starting next year when the merger of the ALMS and GRAND-AM is complete, the pair will lead the board of directors guiding the new series. France will serve as chairman, Panoz as vice chairman.“Jim, you will be the leader for our future in America,” Panoz said.“And you’ll be our standard-bearer this year.”READ MORE: LE MANS, FRANCE (June 20, 2013) – GRAND-AM Road Racing founder Jim France was formally presented Thursday with the French flag he’ll use to start the 90th anniversary running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans. READ: Mobil 1 Tech: Car seat safetylast_img read more

Read more

first_img Promoted Content5 Of The World’s Most Unique Theme ParksIs This The Most Delicious Food In The World?Which Country Is The Most Romantic In The World?7 Truly Incredible Facts About Black Holes5 Of The World’s Most Unique Theme Parks7 Ways To Understand Your Girlfriend BetterWhat Is A Black Hole And Is It Dangerous For Us All?7 Reasons Why You Might Want To Become A Vegetarian8 Amazing Facts About Ancient Egypt7 Black Hole Facts That Will Change Your View Of The Universe11 Most Immersive Game To Play On Your Table TopTop Tastiest Foods From All Over The World “The guy wrote back and said, ‘We would love to but, because of the way our board members view you, you can’t help out’. “I want to give back to these kids who don’t have anything, because I grew up not having anything, and I can’t even do that because of my cleavage. “We bond over having a common interest and we all love the same thing … I don’t understand why it matters if you’re wearing a polo (shirt) and I’m not wearing a polo. “If a guy on tour wears shorts instead of pants, the world’s not going to end. In golf, people make all of these problems so serious and it’s not serious.” Spiranac wants focus on the game not on outfit She branded golf the “worst place” for her as she is the “opposite” of the expectations of the sport. “Golf is the absolute worst place for me to be because I am the exact opposite of everything that a golfer should encompass, should be, and I’m not. Read AlsoUK golfing season: Osaze Odemwingie can’t wait to Tee- off “I’m not refined, I’m raw and real and I wear what I want and I have always been so different and golf is not that way. “It’s an act. I feel like everyone in golf is just playing this part of this perfect golfer when in reality it’s nothing like that. FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Golf star Paige Spiranac has slammed the sport as “elitist”, “stuffy” and full of “hypocrisy” as the claims she will never fit in because of her image. The Spiranac has amassed an army of Instagram followers having initially found fame by posting trick shot videos. The 26-year-old had a short stint as a professional golfer after being considered a future star in college. But she has now turned her attentions elsewhere and become a social media personality. Spiranac insists Golf is stuffy, discriminatory and pretentious. Spiranac, who last week opened up on how she beat a nude photo leak by posing for Sports Illustrated on her own terms, has hit out at rules over what players can wear as she slammed the hierarchy of the sport. She revealed she was once rejected from helping a charity ‘because of her cleavage’ by a golf club board as she claimed to have been shamed. Speaking on the latest episode of her podcast Playing-A-Round, she said: “Golf is elitist, it’s stuffy, it’s exclusive and I hate that because I am not that and I was never welcomed in and I’m still not welcomed in. Discussing the charity incident she added: “I wanted to help this charity out and I wanted to give them free golf clubs. Loading… last_img read more

Read more