DEFAMATION CYBER LAW SECTION 66A OF IT ACT IN INDIA , CENSORING INTERNET , LOYALTY TO WATAN (MOTHERLAND) AND NOT TO A PERSON ON THE THRONE / CONSTITUTION - CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL
Below: Hitler saab, sue mat kar -- please--kindly--
SINCE THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS HAS EXCEED 200 CLICK ON "LOAD MORE "TO SEE THE BALANCE COMMENTS.
SUBJECT : Dissent on cyberspace no offence, Centre says in SC. --Dec 18, 2014, 02.16 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that mere political dissent or criticism through social networking sites could not be a ground for arrest of the author but maintained that Section 66A of Information and Technology Act was meant to deal with those who threaten to harm others physically and culturally.
This stand would provide much needed relief to the cyber citizens as many in the past had been hounded by law enforcing agencies for posting "objectionable" posts in the social networking sites.
Sources in the government said the government's stance was prompted by a direct intervention by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Sources said during deliberations, Modi made a strong pitch for complete freedom of expression on social media, saying that the provisions of the IT Act should be read in conformity with the Article 19(2) of the Constitution which guarantees free speech.
READ ALSO: 2 girls arrested for harmless online comment
Internet service providers, through senior advocate K K Venugopal, said that in a democracy the government should not have power to order them to take down some material posted on their sites as such a provision was prone to be misused for political purposes.
Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, citing the recent case of Twitter handle on which offensive messages on behalf of radically fundamental ISIS group were being posted, argued that such a provision was needed.
But he said: "Mere political dissent or hot discussion cannot be a ground for taking action against the social networking sites and people who post such message." "This is the only media which is censor free. Emergency would have been a big fiasco had there been social media at that time," Mehta told a bench of Justices Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
The ASG also stressed that there were very few cases when the government has asked the service provider to remove such contents, even as he made a case for "reasonable" curbs.
"If through a twitter post, people are asked to join terrorist organization, then there is a reasonable ground to ask the service provider to remove the material," Mehta said.
He also said that if someone initiated action against service providers for posting "obscene" contents then there would be no protection under IT Act and the case would be adjudicated by the court.
READ ALSO: Online posts against Narendra Modi spell trouble
Venugopal said his clients should also be given protection under freedom of speech and expression as they were also part of dissemination of knowledge and information. He questioned how a government could direct them to remove the material within 36 hours and said such directions were "signs of dictatorship" impermissible in a democracy.
The arrest of two Mumbai girls for their post in facebook criticizing the bandh call on Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's funeral day had led to their arrest. This had spurred a college girl, Shreya Singhal, to move the apex court challenging the validity of Section 66A.
SUBJECT : Dissent on cyberspace no offence, Centre says in SC .
WE HAVE BOLLYWOOD SUPER STARS RINGING UP THEIR PET TOP POLICE OFFICERS TO APPLY CYBER LAW 66 A ON PEOPLE WHO TRY TO PROTECT BHARATMATA FROM EVIL FOREIGN FORCES . .
LAWS OF INDIA CANNOT BE USED TO RECEIVE AN EGO MASSAGE . . PM MODI GETS ABUSED DAILY, BUT YOU HAVE TO TREAT THESE STAR SON SUPERSTARS LIKE GOD . .
TRUTH SPEECH BY DESH BHAKTS TO SAVE BHARATMATA CAN NEVER BE HATE SPEECH OR DEFAMATION . .
the undersigned was harassed for giving early warning of indian tribals being subjected to UNTESTED CHEAP GENERIC DRUGS , which was being pushed by a bollywood superstar on a popular foreign funded TV program on sundays . .
THIS THING OF BOLLYWOOD STARS DANCING FOR MUMBAI POLICE ( UMANG ) MUST BE STOPPED , AS THERE IS A CLEAR POLICE MAFIA NEXUS DEVELOPING BEHIND THE SCENE -- WHICH HAS BEEN PROFILED AND DOCUMENTED BY OUR SECURITY AGENCIES . .
WHY IS THIS BEING CONDONED ?
CAN THE BOLLYWOOD STARS DANCE FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WITH A NEW NAME LIKE TARANG ?
I AGREE HARD PRESSED MUMBAI POLICE DESERVES A GOOD DEAL - LET IT BY A SALARY HIKE AND BETTER FACILITIES FOR THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN .
RAJNATH SINGH MUST KNOW THAT UNDERWORLD BOLLYWOOD FUNDING INCLUDES ENORMOUS MONEY FROM PAKISTAN .
NEW BOLLYWOOD MOVIES ARE RELEASED WITH TOP POLITICIANS ATTENDING FIRST SCREENING . . .
KYA HO RAHA HAI ? . .
Below: Special screening of PK
NEW BOLLYWOOD MOVIES ARE RELEASED WITH TOP POLITICIANS ATTENDING FIRST SCREENING . . .
KYA HO RAHA HAI ? . .
Below: Special screening of PK
WHEN MY SHIP WAS A KARACHI, I WAS SURPRISED TO GET CDs OF MOVIES NOT YET RELEASED IN INDIA ON THE BLACK MARKET - I GOT IT ON BOARD AND SAW IT MYSELF TO BELIEVE IT .
BUNTY SIBAL AND HIS 66A TO PROTECT THE WAITRESS AND HER NOT SO BRIGHT SON , MUST BE IN ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE- THE GARBAGE BIN OF INDIAN HISTORY .. .
HOWEVER MODI MUST NOT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WITH ANONYMOUS NAMES AND IDs TO MAKE COMMENTS ON NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS . .
BHARATMATA IS BEING BLED BY DESH DROHI HASBARAS WHO STAY ABROAD WITH HINDU NAMES . .
MAKE IT COMPULSORY THAT ALL COMMENTS / POSTS ON INTERNET MUST HAVE REAL NAME AND PHOTO .
right now we can see comments on times of india , where anonymous people threaten to kill the PM of India . . can this happen in USA . ?
punch into Google search -
.. . .HASBARA PROPAGANDA ON SOCIAL MEDIA VADAKAYIL . . .
capt ajit vadakayil
A CYBER CASE VIDE IT SEC 66A WAS SLAPPED ON CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL BY AAMIR KHAN , AND HIS SUNDAY SHOW SATYAMEVA JAYATE ( SEASON 1 ) .
I was accused of telling LIES that funding received by SATYAMEVA JAYATE was going to HUMANITY TRUST which sponsors building of mosques and madrassas , while the money for being collected for a greater good .
But here is the advertisement of HUMANITY TRUST DOT COM , which i saw on the internet Humanitytrust.com domain is registered in 2009.
In their complaint Aamir Khan and SMJ clarified that their donations go to HUMANITY TRUST HOSPITAL DOT ORG and not DOT COM .
Here is what HUMANITY TRUST HOSPITAL DOT ORG has to say . They clearly declare that they have nothing to do with SMJ or AAMIR KHAN .
Humanitytrust.org domain was registered in June 2012 and expired in June 2013.
Humanityhospital.org domain is registered in Jan 2011
ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS FOR AAMIR KHAN AND SMJ TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION - AND THAT WOULD HAVE CLOSED THE MATTER .
WHAT WITH SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT DOT COM / DOT ORG / TRUST AND HOSPITAL WITH HUMANITY TRUST BEING COMMON .
FOR THIS INNOCENT CONFUSION , I WAS ARRESTED AND RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME .
CYBER POLICE CAME TO MY HOUSE ( WHOSE ADDRESS I PROVIDED BY SMS AND EMAIL ) , WHILE ALL NEWSPAPERS TOM TOMMED THAT I WAS NABBED .
I MUST CONFESS THAT I WAS TREATED WITH GREAT RESPECT BY THE CYBER POLICE BEING A SHIP CAPTAIN FOR 30 YEARS AND A VALUABLE CHILD OF BHARATMATA -
--AND I KNOW MUMBAI CYBER POLICE WILL READ THIS POST TODAY -- THANK YOU FOR BEING KIND AND PROFESSIONAL GENTLEMEN ! INDIAN POLICE IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RUDE AND CRUDE BEHAVIOR .
IF THEY HAD TREATED ME SHABBILY I DO NOT KNOW HOW I WOULD HAVE REACTED OUT OF LOSS OF FAITH IN THE INDIAN SYSTEM - ( and i am a writer with my own powers ).
EVERY POST OF MINE HAS MY PICTURE, AND I HAVE PROVIDED PHOTOS OF MY FAMILY AND HOME -- WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF BEING NABBED ?
AND I WAS VERY SURE THAT WHOEVER FILES AN FIR FIRST IS NEVER THE WINNER -- AS MOST THIEVES ( CHECK OUT THE ROHTAK SISTERS ) RUN TO POLICE STATION FIRST .
BUT ANOTHER GUY ( who also told about humanity trust ) WAS IN HIDING FOR NEARLY A YEAR - HE EVEN SOLD HIS HOUSE AND WAS UNEMPLOYED .
WHAT IS ALL THIS ?
ARE WE A DEMOCRACY ?
ARE WE A FREE COUNTRY ?
DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO A POINT OF VIEW AS PER OUR CONSTITUTION ?
( freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution )
HOW DOES CALLING AAMIR KHAN A NAUTANKIWALLAH BECOME DEFAMATION ?
HE WAS CALLED BY THE SAME NAME BY SO MANY TOP POLITICIANS OF TV AND THE RELEASE OF FANAH WAS DELAYED ( NARMADA DAM ISSUE ) .
So Modi can be called MAUTH KA SAUDAGAR by the waitress -- but high and mighty Aamir Khan cannot be called nautankiwallah by SOFT TARGETS - while HARD politicians are exempted?
Nautankiwallah means ACTOR in our national language .
I have NOT called Aamir Khan KABULIWALLAH .
What was the need to over react when in the same offending post, I have clearly mentioned that I am a big fan of his movies ?
I even gave a video of Ghajini movie song in the same para .
Today I do NOT care for him and so does a VERY large number of my own fans . Aamir Khan must know that I have more fans that him, based on my readership statistics .
He is an actor - I am a FOURTH PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY writer ( who is NOT a writer's son - and came up on merit in just 4 years to be India's No 1 blogger ).
By the way a sensible person will know that I am NOT anti-Islamic .
So what if mosques and madrassas ( who hoist the national flag on 15th Aug ) is made ? Why has Aamir Khan taken it in a negative sense ? Did I say mosques and madrassas breed terrorists ?
My own two sons studied in a Muslim majority school ( 92% Muslims in school).
Today my eldest son is doing very well on this planet-- just to show that a Muslim school can also produce assets for Bharatmata -- NOT just Love Dale , Doon or Mayo whatever .
People have asked me, if you are such a desh bhakt , why is your son in USA? I reply -- I want him to know what he is worth. I know what I am worth because I traveled this planet for 3 decades as a ship captain and 4 decades as a sailor ..
Today my son represents his firm ( has the best office campus on this planet ) in stock holders meetings - the only dark skinned man in a 7 star hotel conference hall of hundreds of rich men and women . All stare at him as if he should NOT be there .
When my mother asked me why I am enrolling my elder son in a Muslim majority school , I asked her a counter question -- when you put me in a Catholic majority school ( St Joseph's Anglo Indian Girls High School, Calicut ) what were you thinking ?
I scouted around lost of schools in Calicut , and I chose this Muslim school , just because I felt the children were happy . The other schools , the children appeared to be under the rule of heavy discipline .
I went to a school where while sitting in the principal's chambers , a young 6 year old boy was ushered in and the female principal blasted the small boy for not bringing his fees - and the terrified boy cried out loud . I immediately got up and walked out with my shocked wife in tow.
When I went to the Muslim school, for admission in LKG, I passed a Class 2 class room on the way to the principal's room with Math problems on the black board. My wife told me that my son knows all that as she taught him on the ship . So I told the principal-- my son can do the math on the board of the Class 2 class room. which is three divisions higher .
He immediately called the LKG class teacher and asked him, if she wants to ask my son any math questions based on the black board-- she placed my son on her lap , kissed him and said - NOPE !
Below: Ever heard of bonny AMUL babies ?
My son passed out of this school 12 years later, with the trophy for the BEST ALL ROUND BOY .
Henceforth EGO POWERED DEFAMATION CASES ( CYBER IT SECTION 66A ) must have SEVERE reverse punishment for wasting the time of the judiciary .
What really transpired ?
It is our family custom that our PITRU PAKSHA and SHRADDH we donate free breakfast/ lunch / dinner to any LARGE orphanage / govt hospital / mental home . Religion is NOT an issue as most of these places in Calicut have a big percentage of Muslims.
So this time we decided to donate to HUMANITY TRUST of SATYAMEVA JAYATE – the TV show run by Aamir Khan.
On searching for the Internet donation site , we found HUMANITY TRUST DOT COM.
On checking out what this trust does it was found that this Islamic organization builds Madrassas / Mosques etc.
The DEFAMATION charge?
QUOTE: or claiming on blogs and a website that proceeds from the show were being used to build mosques, thereby accusing Aamir of promoting Islamic fundamentalism. UNQUOTE
( THE HIGHLIGHTED WORDS ARE PATHETIC LIES )-
I HAVE NOT ACCUSED AAMIR KHAN OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND AND SO, -
IT WOULD HAVE GONE AGAINST AAMIR KHAN IN COURT - FOR MY LAWYER IS A WINNER , AND HE REFUSED AN OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT OFFERED BY THE JUDGE .
( WHY DOES AAMIR KHAN THINK MOSQUES AND MADRASSAS PROMOTE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM -- THESE ARE HIS OWN WORDS AND OWN FEELINGS )
I checked out the first FIVE pages of google search—and did NOT find any other organization with the same name , as FAKE sites swindle money on the Internet .
Later SMJ clarified that their donation trust is HUMANITY TRUST DOT ORG.( not dot COM )
Now if I or any other man on this planet , were in the shoes of AAMIR KHAN we would be happy , right ?
WHY IS AAMIR KHAN FURIOUS ?
What is the catch?
Why should he be furious when some one tells him that a DUPLICATE site is making money on his FAIR NAME ?
If anybody does NOT agree with me the time to tell is now !
My blogsite does NOT make any money— I do NOT allow advertisements, though I can make a fortune by doing so. .
There are many other sites using variants like ajitvadakayil1 / ajitvadakayil2/ ajitvadakayilmyson etc .
Some of them make money using my name , by allowing advertisements.
I knew of all this through my readers . When they told me ,I was happy.
If I were Aamir Khan I would be furious ?
Why should I be furious when some one tells me that a DUPLICATE site is making money on my FAIR NAME ?
HOW DOES IT AMOUNT TO DEFAMATION? INSTEAD, I MUST BE GRATEFUL, RIGHT ?
THIS IS THE MEANING OF PERCEPTION !
THIS IS WHY I STARTED THIS BLOGSITE—TO TEACH “PERCEPTION” TO THE GOOD DENIZENS OF THIS PLANET.
This HUMANITY TRUST DOT “ORG” DID NOT COME UP ON THE PAGES ON ANY INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE EVEN A YEAR AFTER MY FIRST SEARCH .
Yes, I called him NAUTANKIWALLAH ( for crying in every episode ).
Yes, I had said a few unsavory truths about KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOUR selling Coke one year and Pepsi the next year which has given the children of India fatty liver disease).
All my posts have juicy SAILOR LANGUAGE – as I have been a sailor for 4 decades and in command of ships for 30 years – in fact I hold the world record as a ship captain.
I put some F words deliberately in my blogs -just to show that I am NOT a paid up PRESSTITUTE of the MAIN STREAM MEDIA .
I do NOT even correct the spelling mistakes though my computer underlines these words with a wavy red line --just to show that I have NO boss over me .
I WARN NARENDRA MODI-- ALLOW FREEDOM ON THE INTERNET ONLY TO PEOPLE WHO PUT THEIR OWN PHOTOS ON THE POST WITH PROPER NAME AND ID .
IF YOU ALLOW ANONYMOUS HASBARAS SITTING IN PAKISTAN AND ISRAEL UNBRIDLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH - BHARATMATA WILL BLEED !
INSTRUCT MAIN STREAM MEDIA NOT TO ALLOW ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET .
THE INDIAN MAIN MEDIA DELETES DESH BHAKT COMMENTS WHICH HELP BHARATMATA - HOWEVER THEY ALLOW DESH DROHI COMMENTS WHICH ABUSE BHARATMATA/ ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY, THREATS TO PM MODIs LIFE etc .
I ASK ONE OF MY READERS TO POST THIS ENTIRE BLOG BY THE LINK IN MODIs, SWAMYs, RAJNATH SINGHs, PRASADs WEBSITES .
Below: Hitler saab, sue mat kar -- please--kindly--
I am a Tevez fan. He plays for soccer club Juventus. Carlos Tevez is known as the PEOPLEs CHAMP in Argentina .
Below: Bunty Sibal wanted to gain the goodwill of the waitress--and hence we got 66A
CHECK OUT THE LINK BELOW:--
www.sacw.net | March 24, 2005
Text of citizens statement re the Indian Prime minister's comments in the Rajya Sabha following refusal of US Visa to Narendra Modi
We express our shock and anger at the stand taken by the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in the Rajya Sabha on the issue of refusal of visa to Mr. Narendra Modi by the USA.
He has said that it is not proper for any agency to form its opinion on the role of Sh. Modi in the 2002 Gujarat genocide based on mere allegations. Sh. Singh needs to be reminded that it was the NHRC which had castigated Mr. Modi and his state government for having aided and abetted the act of genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, and it was the Supreme Court of India that had opined that the Modi government cannot be relied upon to bring about justice to the victims of the carnage.
More than 50 national and international agencies of high credibility with their painstaking investigation had held Mr. Modi directly responsible for the act of genocide.
The Prime Minister needs to come clean on this issue. Does he hold a considered opinion that the observations made by the NHRC and the Supreme Court of India are to be treated with contempt as shown by him in his Rajya Sabha speech?
Mr. Modi's policies of hatred should not be legitimised even by association. Mr. Modi is no ordinary elected leader. He has become infamous for his active abetment in the most brutal massacre since India became free, of a segment of the citizens of his state.
His notoriety has deepened in the past 3 years because he remains completely unrepentant for these crimes, including the mass slaughter and rape of hundreds of innocent women and children, and instead has openly fought elections from a platform of hate.
He has deliberately subverted the process of justice, that have attracted unprecedented structure from the Supreme Court of India.
We continue - to harbour grave disquiet about the militaristic and chauvinistic policies of the current US government itself, most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq. George Bush and his cohorts cannot be the arbiters of human rights.
We commend the untiring efforts of NRIs and human rights activists in the US and in India who mobilized public opinion and pressurized the US administration which led to the denial of Modi's visa. For those who claim that the international community has no role to play in the Gujarat carnage since it is a matter internal to the Indian nation, we would like to remind them that by the same logic, the entire world should have remained a mute spectator as millions of Jews were imprisoned and executed in concentration camps by the Nazi government.
For those who claim that any insult to any elected official is an insult to the entire nation, we would like to remind them that Hitler, who is reviled even today, was also an elected official.
There is nothing more insulting to the Indian nation than the pogroms that took place in Gujarat, and the fact that their main architect, Sh Narendra Modi, still continues to enjoy the powers and privileges of the Chief Minister in that state, while the Prime Minister of the country rushes to his defence.
It is a matter of great shame that even 10 months after having assumed power the UPA government has done nothing to ensure justice to the victims of Gujarat genocide. It has taken no steps to instill a sense of security and confidence among the displaced, raped, and maimed minorities of Gujarat who have been left to fend for themselves. No financial and legal aid has been arranged by the Central government for them and it is treating the whole Gujarat genocide as a routine state matter.
The statement by Dr. Manmohan Singh adds insult to the injury suffered by the Genocide victims of Gujarat, and is an affront to those NRIs and human rights activists in the US whose unflagging pressure on the US administration resulted in the denial of Mr. Modi's visa. That Dr. Singh should feel compelled to come out openly to speak for an organizer of mass murder who feels no remorse for his role shows that Dr. Singh has lost all sense of propriety. The statement also shows that the government wants to remain neutral on the question of communalism.
We, as people who are committed to secularism and human rights in India, feel betrayed and would like to take this opportunity to express our sense of despair that the political formation which is in power at the centre lacks any sense of moral responsibility and moral courage.
On behalf of the dead and living victims of Gujarat genocide and on behalf of the sections of civil society which have worked for the defeat of the communal forces we demand an apology from Dr. Manmohan Singh for having humiliated the wronged citizens of India by issuing a highly insensitive and irresponsible statement defending Mr. Narendra Modi.
March 21, 2005
Shabnam Hashmi - ANHAD, Delhi >
On behalf of:
1. Aamir Khan- Actor, Mumbai
2. Aditya-Ceo, Ekgaon Technologies
3. Admiral Ramu Ramdas- Member, National Integration Council
4. Adv. Aradhana Bhargava- Mahatama Gandhi Sansthan, Madhya Pradesh
5. Adv. Rajendra K. Sail-Pucl, Chattisgarh
6. Agnesh Murmu-Gram Sabha Seva Sansthan,Jharkhand
7. Ajeet Caur, Writer, Delhi
8. Ajit Kumar-Arise, Aurangabad
9. Akshay Sail -Rcdrc, Raipur
10. Alladi Sitaram-Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute
11. Allwyn D' Silva- Documentation Research And Training Centre,Mumbai
12. Amal Charles -,Step, Secundrabad
13. Amar Farooqui- Reader, History Dept, Delhi University, Delhi
14. Amar Jyoti- Activist, Chennai
15. Amita & BCF Team
16. Amrit Gangar-Film Critic, Curator,Mumbai
17. Amrita Chhachhi, Delhi
18. Anand Kumar- Ncdhr
19. Anand Patwardhan-Film Maker, Mumbai
20. Anant Krishna-Researcher, Hyderabad
21. Aneesh Pradhan-Musician, Mumbai
22. Angana Chatterji-Professor of Anthropology, San Francisco, USA
23. Anil Chaudhary-Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi
24. Anjum Rajabali-Script Writer, Mumbai
25. Anu Chenoy- Academician,JNU
26. Anup Sanda- National Alliance of People's Movements, Sultanpur, UP
27. Anurag Chaturvedi-Journalist, Mumbai
28. Anwar Ahmad
29. Apoorvanand- Reader, Delhi University
30. Aradhana Seth- Vienna. Austria.
31. Arjun Dev- Historian, Delhi
32. Arpana Caur- Painter, Delhi
33. Arundhati Dhuru - National Alliance of People's Movements, Lucknow, UP
34. Arvind Krishnaswamy- Insaaniyat, Mumbai
35. Arvind Kumar- National Alliance of People's Movements, Mau , UP
36. Ashis Nandy-CSDS, Delhi
37. Ashish Garg- Regional Coordinator-India, World Links, New Delhi
38. Ashok Kumar Dalai-Maitree Samaj, Orissa
39. Ashok Vajpeyi, Writer, Delhi
41. Bhashwati- Activist, Hyderabad
42. Bishakha Datta-Documentary Filmmaker And Writer, Mumbai
43. Cedric Prakash - Director, Prashant(Centre For Human Rights Justice And Peace, Gujarat
44. Chandita Mukherjee-Film Maker, Mumbai
45. Chitra Singh- Animal Rights Activist, Bhopal
46. Chitranjan Singh-PUCL, Allahabad
47. Colin Gonsalves-Human Rights Law Network
48. Damini Tiwari- Student, Mumbai
49. Dayamani Barla -Freelance Journalist, Jharkhand
50. Deepak Singh-Managing Director - Iram, Ex Member - I-Congo (Indian Confederation Of NGOs)
51. Digant Oza- Senior Journalist, Ahmedabad
52. Dilip Kumar- Veteran Film Actor, Mumbai
53. Dilip Simeon-Academician, Delhi University
54. Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan- Editor, The Milli Gazette Newspaper, New Delhi
55. Dr. Amar Jesani- Medico Friend Circle, Forum For Medical Ethics Society, Mumbai
56. Dr. Seema Parveen-Institute of Social Sciences, Lucknow
57. Dr. Umakant-Ncdhr
58. Dr. Virendra Vidrohi -MMSVS, Rajasthan
59. Dr.Saroop Dhruv -,Darshan , Ahmedabad
60. Farah Naqvi- Independant Writer And Activist, Delhi
61. Farida Khan
62. Firozkhan Pathan-Dallas, Taxes, USA
63. Francis Parmar, Principal, St Xaviers College, Ahmedabad
64. Gauhar Raza-Documentary Film Maker, Poet, Delhi
65. Gorakshnath Dhanwate-Prerna Krida Mandal, Maharashtra
66. Govind Singh Mahra-Uttarakhand Van Panchayat,Sarpanch Sangathan,Uttranchal
67. Harsh Kapoor-South Asia Citizens Web, France
68. Harsh Mander-Writer, Social Activist, Delhi
69. Hema B.Rajashekhar
70. Hemant Tiwari, Uttranchal
71. Henri Tiphange, People's Watch, Chennai
72. Hiren Gandhi,Theatre, Samvedan Cultural Programme, Ahmedabad
73. Hyder Khan, Chairman, Supporters Of Human Rights In India (SHRI), Minneapolis
75. Imtiazuddin- Exec Dir, Coalition For A Secular And Democratic India, Chicago
76. Indira Arjun Dev-Acaedemician, Delhi
77. Irfan Ahmed ,Lok Manch, Aurangabad
78. Irfan Habib-Historian, Delhi
79. Jaba Menon- One Worldnet, Delhi
80. Janette Sunita- Tarshi, Delhi
81. Jaswinder Singh Mand, Journalist, Nawa Zamana, Jallandhar
82. Javed Akhtar-Lyricist, Mumbai
83. Jawed Naqvi-Journalist, Delhi
84. Jaya Sharma
85. Juli Queen Mary Selvakumar,-Arise, Tamil Nadu
86. Jyoti Bose, Principal, Springdales School, Delhi
87. K. L. Moyo -Save The River Movement, Nagaland
88. K.N.Sasi -Vaikom, Kerela
89. Kabir Vajpeyi-
91. Kalyani Upendranath Baske-Nagpur Diocesan Dev. Assn. (Ndda), Maharashtra
92. Kamal Mitra Chenoy- Professor, JNU
93. Kandala Singh- Youth For Peace
94. Karthik Bezawada,Principal, Crictv Llc
96. Khalid Azam-Coalition Against Genocide, USA
97. Kiran Shaeen- Head Communication, New Delhi
98. KN Panikkar-Academician, Trivendrum
99. Lahrc, Surat
100. Lalit Babar- Dalit Activist, Mumbai
101. Lalita Ramdas-Activist, Maharashtra
102. Laxmaiah of CDS
103. M. J. Jose-Dawn Trust . Kerela
104. M.Mandal-Activist, Hyderabad
105. Mahesh - National Alliance Of People's Movements, Lucknow
106. Mahesh Bhatt, Producer & Director
107. Manas Jena- Development Initiative, Orissa
108. Manasa Patnam-Youth Forpeace
109. Manjula Sen-Freelance Journalist, Mumbai
110. Manoj Kumar- Belgium
111. Mansi Sharma-Anhad
112. Marry E.John-Women's Studies Programme, JNU
113. Martin J Shah- Prog Officer, RUPcha, Delhi
114. Martin Macwan- Navsarjan, Gujarat
115. Meera Velayudhan-Utthan
116. Mitu Pati-Suprabat, Orissa
117. Molana Hanif -,Mewat Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Rajasthan
118. Mouttoucannou , PUCL, Kerela
119. Moyna Manku-Youth For Peace, Hyderabad
120. Mrinalini Tiwari, Student, Mumbai
121. Mukul Dube, Free Lance Writer, Delhi
122. Mukundan C. Menon,Secretary General,(CHRO)
123. N.D.Pancholi- The Amiya & B.G.Rao Foundation, New Delhi
124. Nafisa Ali, Actress, Activist, Delhi
125. Nandita Das-Actress, Delhi
126. Nandlal Master- National Alliance Of People's Movements, Varanasi
127. Nanjundaiah,Nisarga Foundation, Mysore
128. Nasirriddin Haider Khan,
129. Naveen Siromoni,Creative Director,Karpediem Design Pvt Ltd
130. Neha Patel, TARSHI, Delhi
131. Osama Manzar- Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation
132. P. Joseph Victor Raj,Holistic Approach For People'S Empowerment,Hope, Pondicherry
133. Paul Divakar, NCDHR, Hyderabad
134. PD John- Policy Institute, Washington DC
135. Prabha,-Tarshi, Delhi
136. Praful Bidwai, Senior Journalist, Delhi
137. Pramila Loomba- Vice President, NFIW, Delhi
138. Prashant Bhushan-Advocate Supreme Court, Delhi
139. Praveen Mote,Samatha, Hyderabad
140. Priti Verma- Human Rights Law Network
141. Prof. Dipankar Home,Dept. of Physics, Bose Institute, Kolkata
142. Ra Ravishankar, University of Illinois
143. Ra Ravishankar, University of Illinois, USA/St1:Country-Region>
144. Raghu Tiwari ,Aman
145. Rahul Ram, Singer
146. Rajim Tandi,Mukti - Niketan, Chattisgarh
147. Ram Kumar-
148. Ram Punyani, Ekta, Mumbai
149. Ramesh Ali Beasant , Ambedkar Lohia Vichar Manch , Cuttack
150. Reuban Raj-Center For Education & Social Services, Madurai
151. Rish Raj Singh, Entrepreneur, Bhopal
152. Ruchira Gupta, Executive Director,Apne Aap Women Worldwide
153. Ruth Manorma- Dalit Activists, Tamil Nadu
154. S Faizi, Environmentalist, Thiruvananthapuram
Dr. Henry Thiagaraj, Managing Trustee, Dalit Liberation Education Trust & Founder Of Human Rights Education Movement
155. S K Thorat- International Institute of Dalit Studies
156. S. Sreekant, Deed - Development Through Education, Karnataka
157. Saeed Patel, NRI-SAHI
158. Sahir Raza-Youth For Peace
159. Sameer Singh, Media Planner
160. Sandeep Pandey- National Alliance of People's Movements, Lucknow, UP
161. Sangram Keshari Mallik,Manav Adhikar, Orissa
162. Sanjay Singh- National Alliance of People's Movements, Sutanpur, UP
163. Sarup Dhruv -Theatre, Darshan, Ahmedabad
Utkarsh Kumar Sinha-Ccrs (Centre For Contemporary Research & Studies), Lucknow
164. Sarup Dhruv, Darshan, Ahmedabad
165. Sehba Farooqui- Gen-Sec, National Federation Of Indian Women (NFIW), Delhi
166. Shabnam Hashmi -Social Activist, Member, National Integration Council,Delhi
167. Shalini Gera-Activist, USA
168. Shamanthaka David,Cord, Karnataka
169. Sharda, Deed, Karnataka
170. Sheba George, SAHR WARU
171. Shekhar,Samvad, Jharkhand
172. Shiamala Baby ,Forum For Women's Rights & Development (Forword), Chennai
173. Shibi Peter,Youth Institute For Leadership Training, CSI Youth, Kerela
174. Shivali, University of Illinois,USA
175. Shoba Ramachandran, Books For Change, Bangalore
176. Shubha Mudgal, Musician, Delhi
177. Snehaprabha Mallick,Sc - St Village Welfare Dev. Yojana, Orissa
178. Sofia Khan, Advocate, Ahmedabad
179. Sohail Hashmi, Documentary Filmmaker
180. Sonia Jabber, Film Maker, Delhi
181. SP Udayakumar, South Asian Community Centre For Education And Research, Nagercoil
182. Stalin K., Filmmaker.
183. Subhendu Bhadra- Promise of India
184. Sujata Tiwari, Anticounterfieting, Mumbai
185. Suma Josson, Mumbai
186. Sunil Deshmukh36 Northwind Drstamford, Connecticut, USA 06903
187. Sunil Kumar Singh , Lok Manch, Aurangabad
188. Suresh Wasnik,Peace - Peoples Education Ass For Community & Environment, Karnataka
189. Swami Agnivesh
190. T.Jayaraman, Scientist, TIFR
191. Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka, Delhi
192. Than Singh
193. Thomas Pallithanam
194. Tk Ramachandran-Kerala
195. U. Radha Priyadarshini, Sabala, Kurnool
196. Uma Ashish Nandi
197. Vijay Pratap Singh , Social Activist, Delhi
198. Vimal Thorat, Ncdhr, Delhi
199. Vinay Kumar Dalit Bahujan Samaj
200. Vincent Manoharan, NCDHR, Hyderabad
201. Vishwanath, Judav, Jharkhand
202. Wilfred,INSAAF, Ahmedabad
203. Yunus Khimani, Professor, National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad
204. Zubair Patel, Gujarati Muslim Association of America
MODI SAAB , I KNOW YOU WILL READ THIS -- KYA HO RAHA HAI ?
The rest of the 204 people in the list above still throw garbage at you - at least they are NOT hypocrites .
Modi saab - are you a hypocrite?
SUBJECT: Contempt law threatens freedom .-KATJU
WELL DONE KATJU SAAB !
Kerala MLA MV Jayarajan did NOT call the judge a fool.
He used as very restrained word SHUMBHAN - - same meaning in Sanskrit and Malayalam - DENSE INSIDE THE HEAD ( not too bright ).
QUOTE : if they have any self respect they should resign and step down from their office. … Unfortunately, what some DENSE IN THE HEAD people occupying our seat of justice say is nothing else. … :UNQUOTE
OUR CONSTITUTION ALLOWS EVERY CHILD OF BHARATMATA TO EXPRESS HIS POINT OF VIEW . . .
IT IS DUE TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA WERE ABLE TO REJECT THE JUSTICE BANNERJEE RULING THAT A HINDU WOMAN SET THE RAILWAY COMPARTMENT S6 OF SABARMATI EXPRESS ON FIRE AT GODHRA -- -with 4000 witnesses . . .
THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT MUST BE REPEALED . .
THESE LAWS WERE INTRODUCED BY THE OPIUM DRUG RUNNING OWNER OF BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD TO SUBVERT THE SYSTEM USING HIS PET JUDGES , WHOM HE KNIGHTED . .
are the judges god ? .
do they not see how much PM narendra modi ( MAUTH KA SAUDAAGAR ) is taking daily ?
YET IF YOU DONT CALL A JUDGE MeLORD - HE WILL TRY TO PUT YOU IN JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT .
TELLING THE TRUTH, TO SAVE BHARATMATA IS NOW DEFAMATION AND HATE SPEECH VIDE 66A OF THE IT ACT ( BUNTY SIBAL TO PROTECT MADAME ) -- MIND YOU WE HAVE JUST COME OUT OF 800 YEARS OF SLAVERY . . .
FOREIGN FUNDED DESH DROHIS ARE RUNNING WILD IN INDIA .
DESH BHAKTS CANNOT DARE TO EXPOSE DANGERS THE WATAN IS FACING . . .
THE INDIAN JUDICIARY IS GUILT OF SEVERE OVER REACH IN RECENT TIMES . . .
THEY ORDERED INTERLINKING OF RIVERS WITH A DEADLINE -- WHEN THEY ARE JUST ONE PILLAR AMONG FOUR OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY . . .
OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS DO NOT ALLOW THIS . . .
WE NEED TO PULL DOWN THE PILLAR OF JUDICIARY AND ERECT IT AGAIN, USING JURY SYSTEM . . .
KARUNANIDHI EVEN HAD HIS PET DALIT JUDGE ASHOK KUMAR , WHO CRIED WHEN KARUNANIDHI WAS ARRESTED , ASKING, IS YOUR HEART MADE OF MUSCLE OR MUD !!
In USA contempt of court , long ago fell foul of the 1st Amendment and is dismissed as English foolishness - it was contempt against a JEW ROTHSCHILD APPOINTED JUDGE actually . . .
In UK there is NO contempt of court since the 1930s-- and was formally abolished a year ago . .
Capt ajit vadakayil
Student arrested for Facebook Post
A class 11 student has been arrested for posting on facebook an alleged statement of Mr. Azam Khan, U.P. Minister.
I have perused the post. It is certainly objectionable, and Mr. Azam Kan has denied making such a statement.
The statement says " Secularism and love of nation is forbidden in Islam ". This is certainly objectionable, and is likely to incite communal feelings. Even if it has only been shared, that makes no difference. In a country with so much diversity as ours we must take care not to hurt the feelings of any community. To say that love of the nation is forbidden in Islam is bound to hurt the feelings of Muslims, the vast majority of whom are as patriotic as the vast majority ofHindus.
However, in my opinion, instead of arresting the boy the better course of action would have been for Mr. Azam Khan to have denied issuing such a statement, and asked for removal of that post from facebook.
It may be mentioned that arrest is not a must in every case where an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is registered with the police. This is obvious from section 157 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. which reads :
" 157. Procedure for investigation
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; "
The use of the words "and, if necessary " in the above provision clearly indicates that it is not incumbent on the police to arrest in every case, rather it is discretionary.
In Joginder Kumar vs. State of U. P. A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1349 ( see online ) the Supreme Court observed : " No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. "
Thus the Supreme Court has held that arrest is not a must in every case. In the same decision the Supreme Court has noted that the National Police Commission in its Third Report has observed that 60% arrests in India are unnecessary or unjustified, and that arrests are a major source of corruption in the police.
In my opinion arrest was unnecessary in this case, and the boy should have been let off with a warning and told to remove the objectionable post.
CYBER LAW IT SEC 66A HAS BEEN REDUCED TO CELEBRITIES SHOWING THEIR CLOUT WITH TOP RANKING POLICE OFFICERS ---
-- AND DEMANDING A PUBLIC EGO MASSAGE . . .
THIS MUST STOP . . .
punch into Google search - -
. . . . . . . DISSENT ON CYBER SPACE NOT AN OFFENCE , MODI GOVT VADAKAYIL . . . . .
capt ajit vadakayil
EPILOGUE- MARCH 24TH 2015
SC quashes Section 66A of IT Act: Key points of court verdict
The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which provides the government power to arrest a person for posting allegedly "offensive" content on websites. Here are key points of the SC judgment.
What is Section 66A
Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."
Section 66A violates Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution
The SC said Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression.
Terming liberty of thought and expression as "cardinal", a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said, "The public's right to know is directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act."
Govt can still block websites
The court, however, allowed the government to block websites if their contents had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries.
What may be offensive to a person may not be offensive to the other
"How is it possible for law enforcement agency and others to decide as to what is offensive and what is grossly offensive? What may be offensive to a person may not be offensive to the other," the SC bench said.
Terms used in 66A are quite vague
The court said terms like "annoying", "inconvenient" and "grossly offensive", used in the provision are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offence.
The bench also referred to two judgments of separate UK courts which reached different conclusions as to whether the material in question was offensive or grossly offensive.
Govt can't give an undertaking about its successor
The SC bench rejected the assurance given by NDA government during the hearing that certain procedures may be laid down to ensure that the law in question is not abused. The government had also said that it will not misuse the provision. "Governments come and go but section 66A will remain forever," the bench said, adding the present government cannot give an undertaking about its successor that they will not abuse the same.
Shreya Singhal moved court for repeal of Section 66A
The court was moved by one Shreya Singhal in 2012 following the arrest of two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, for posting comments critical of the Mumbai shutdown following the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray.
Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online
Amit Choudhary & Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Mar 24, 2015, 10.50 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and struck it down.
This section had been widely misused by police in various states to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites.
The court said such a law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, two cardinal pillars of democracy.
The court said such a law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, the two cardinal pillars of democracy. The court said the section has to be erased from the law books as it has gone much beyond the reasonable restrictions put by the Constitution on freedom of speech. The Supreme Court said section 66A was vaguely worded and allowed its misuse by police.
The court, however, upheld the validity of section 69B and the 2011 guidelines for the implementation of the I-T Act that allowed the government to block websites if their content had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries.
However, the court watered down section 79 of the I-T Act making it further difficult for the police to harass innocent for their comments on social network sites.
The SC delivered its judgment on a bunch of petitions filed in the light of misuse of the penal provision by government authorities against persons who allegedly uploaded offensive posts on social networking sites.
The petitioners, including NGOs, civil rights groups and a law student, had argued that Section 66A violated citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The first petition was however filed by a law student Shreya Singhal.
The government had opposed the plea for quashing the provision saying it is meant to deter people from uploading grossly offensive material which can lead to lawlessness by inciting public anger and violence.
Justifying the retention of the provision, the Centre had told the apex court that the impact of the internet is much wider and restriction on this medium should be higher in comparison to print and TV.
It had said, unlike print and electronic media, the internet did not operate in an institutional form and there was need for some mechanism to put checks and balances.
The government had said the provision could not be quashed just because of its potential misuse. Posting pictures and comments on social networking sites which hurt religious sentiments could not be tolerated and people must be prosecuted, it said.
Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, who appeared for one of the petitioners, termed the judgment a 'glorious vindication' of right to free speech. He spoke to the TOI after SC bench of Justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman struck down section 66A as unconstitutional. Sorabjee said: "The judgment is well researched, well reasoned and erudite in expression. It is a glorious vindication of freedom of expression."
SINCE THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS HAS EXCEED 200 CLICK ON "LOAD MORE "TO SEE THE BALANCE COMMENTS.
Grace and peace !
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL