HC blasts newspaper for dragging vlogger's child into article, says media should self-regulate
New Delhi(PTI): Noting that it understands the freedom of speech "perfectly", the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday media should self-regulate and carry criticism that is just and fair, while voicing displeasure over a newspaper article critical of a vlogger dragging his child into it.
A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul pulled no punches, as it conveyed its unhappiness over the newspaper referring to the child of the social media vlogger, insisting children shouldn't become a victim of propaganda.
You can say whatever you want to about him. But don't visit his family, saying that his child in all probability is going to be mentally challenged....The point is we are completely unhappy with any reference to that child, remarked the bench, also comprising Justice Amit Sharma.
We understand freedom of speech perfectly. But it is self-regulation and we are not saying so. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court, when it dealt with how to regulate media, said self-regulation. So, we expect you to regulate yourself and the standards of self-regulation have to be such that pass muster, the court said.
The court emphasised one should criticise the action and not the person.
Please debate it but don't visit the children. By all means you find his comments distasteful, please go ahead and express yourself but don't take it any further than that, the bench noted.
Drawing an analogy, Justice Mridul said whenever an order is passed by a court, the criticism has to be of the order and not the judges.
We are informed, we don't know, that a lot is said about us (judges) and it is not limited to us. We don't appreciate that....You criticise the order. You don't criticise us. That is just and fair criticism, he said.
The court was hearing an appeal by the newspaper challenging an order of the single judge directing it to take down the allegedly objectionable article.
The lawyer appearing for the newspaper said the vlogger was a public figure whose livelihood was based on posting videos of his and his family on internet , and the article mentions the criticism that he has received from several others for his conduct.
The court noted that the article called the vlogger a "misogynist" and a "child abuser", and asked the appellant to approach the single judge with all the record.
We were a little disturbed that you refer to somebody's child. The child shouldn't become a victim of any propaganda. We can't have that. Say what you will about the man. Criticise his actions, his speech but don't visit his children with such remarks. It is troubling. That we found very offensive, the court said emphatically.
Don't visit the children. They haven't done anything. Don't visit the family or the children, don't do that. That is something that in an appropriate case will have to be determined, it added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US SC rejects 26/11 attack accused Tahawwur Rana’s plea seeking stay on his extradition to India
New York, Apr 7 (PTI): The US Supreme Court has rejected 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana's appeal seeking a stay on his extradition to India, moving him closer to being handed over to Indian authorities to face justice.
Rana, 64, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, is currently lodged at a metropolitan detention centre in Los Angeles.
He is known to be associated with Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 attacks. Headley conducted a recce of Mumbai before the attacks by posing as an employee of Rana’s immigration consultancy.
Rana had submitted an ‘Emergency Application For Stay Pending Litigation of Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus' on February 27, 2025, with Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit Elena Kagan.
Kagan had denied the application earlier last month.
Rana had then renewed his ‘Emergency Application for Stay Pending Litigation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus previously addressed to Justice Kagan’, and requested that the renewed application be directed to US Chief Justice John Roberts.
An order on the Supreme Court website noted that Rana's renewed application had been “distributed for Conference” on April 4 and the “application” has been “referred to the Court.”
A notice on the Supreme Court website Monday said that “Application denied by the Court.”
Rana was convicted in the US of one count of conspiracy to provide material support to the terrorist plot in Denmark and one count of providing material support to Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Lashker-e-Taiba which was responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.
New York-based Indian-American attorney Ravi Batra had told PTI that Rana had made his application to the Supreme Court to prevent extradition, which Justice Kagan denied on March 6. The application was then submitted before Roberts, “who has shared it with the Court to conference so as to harness the entire Court’s view.”
The Supreme Court justices are Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In his emergency application, Rana had sought a stay of his extradition and surrender to India pending litigation (including exhaustion of all appeals) on the merits of his February 13.
In that petition, Rana argued that his extradition to India violates US law and the UN Convention Against Torture "because there are substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited to India, the petitioner will be in danger of being subjected to torture."
"The likelihood of torture in this case is even higher though as petitioner faces acute risk as a Muslim of Pakistani origin charged in the Mumbai attacks,” the application said.
The application also said that his “severe medical conditions” render extradition to Indian detention facilities a “de facto" death sentence in this case.
The US Supreme Court denied Rana's petition for a writ of certiorari relating to his original habeas petition on January 21. The application notes that on that same day, newly-confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio had met with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Washington on February 12 to meet with Trump, Rana’s counsel received a letter from the Department of State, stating that “on February 11, 2025, the Secretary of State decided to authorise” Rana’s "surrender to India,” pursuant to the “Extradition Treaty between the United States and India”.
Rana’s Counsel requested from the State Department the complete administrative record on which Secretary Rubio based his decision to authorize Rana’s surrender to India.
The Counsel also requested immediate information of any commitment the United States has obtained from India with respect to Rana’s treatment. “The government declined to provide any information in response to these requests,” the application said.
It added that given Rana’s underlying health conditions and the State Department’s findings regarding the treatment of prisoners, it is very likely “Rana will not survive long enough to be tried in India".
During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Modi in the White House in February, President Donald Trump announced that his administration has approved the extradition of "very evil" Rana, wanted by Indian law enforcement agencies for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, "to face justice in India”.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at iconic and vital locations in Mumbai.
