Collegium should immediately reiterate its proposed name: Congress
New Delhi, May 4: Accusing the Narendra Modi government of doing "content based discrimination" against certain judges, the Congress on Friday said that the Supreme Court Collegium should have made an immediate reiteration of its recommendation after the government rejected its first proposal.
"There should have been an immediate reiteration of the recommendation. And therefore, we would not agree with the delay which has happened on the reiteration. It should have happened forthwith," Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said.
He stressed that there "should have been a question and a show cause to the government from the judicial side" as to why it took the government four-and-a-half months to even reject its proposal.
He even asked the Collegium to take a leaf out of former Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan's book in case of delay by the government after reiteration. Seshan had once told the government he would hold no elections till the government made all the appointments.
"T.N. Seshan has set an example, a wrong example albeit, but still an example for a higher principle. I am not recommending it. I am only making a rhetorical point. We would implore the Collegium and the judges to uphold that majesty of the independence of judiciary," said Singhvi, an eminent lawyer himself.
The Congress spokesperson's reaction came in response to a media query about the government rejecting Justice K.M. Joseph's elevation to the Supreme Court as recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium and the Collegium deferring its decision on the government's opinion.
The opposition has alleged that the government is scuttling Justice Joseph's elevation for his scrapping President's Rule in Uttarakhand in 2016. As the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, Justice Joseph overturned the dismissal of the state's Harish Rawat-led Congress government by the Narendra Modi government.
"The Congress party cannot support a situation where we believe that there has been a content based discrimination against a particular judge or certain judges either in appointment, elevation or transfer," Singhvi said.
"We believe that it is the majesty of the principle of the independence of judiciary which is most important. It is nothing to do with the Congress or the BJP. It is not even to do with Justice Joseph. It is to do with the much higher principle of independence of judiciary," he added.
Singhvi alleged that there have been reports of a proposal in the government to treat the reiteration by the Collegium of Justice Joseph's name as a fresh recommendation, which he said was "unconstitutional" and "fraud on the Constitution".
"I hope that is not true. I have asked this question myself personally and I am asking through you (media) if the government has this plans. It is unconstitutional, it is fraud on the Constitution to play such game," he said.
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.
Bombay High Court strikes down Centre's plan to set up Fact-Check Unit
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has struck down the central government's plan to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023. The decision comes in response to a petition filed by standup comedian Kunal Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's move.
Justice A.S. Chandurkar, delivering the final verdict, declared that the proposed IT Amendment Rules violated key provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (right to profession).
“I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar said in his judgment. He further remarked that terms like "fake, false, and misleading" in the IT Rules were "vague" and lacked a clear definition, making them unconstitutional.
This judgment followed a split verdict issued by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in January. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, was divided in their opinions. While Justice Patel ruled that the IT Rules amounted to censorship and struck them down, Justice Gokhale upheld the rules, arguing that they did not pose a "chilling effect" on free speech, as the petitioners had claimed.
The matter was then referred to a third judge, leading to today's decision. The Supreme Court had previously stayed the Centre's notification that would have made the fact-checking unit operational, stating that the government could not proceed until the Bombay High Court ruled on the case.
Kunal Kamra and other petitioners had argued that the amendments posed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the provisions would lead to government-led censorship, effectively granting the government unchecked powers to determine what constitutes 'truth' online. The petitioners further claimed that such powers would turn the government into "prosecutor, judge, and executioner" in matters of online content.
With the Bombay High Court’s ruling, the Centre's move to create fact-checking units has been effectively halted, reaffirming the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the digital space.
