Remove 'secular' from Constitution, demands Sanatan Sanstha
Mumbai, Aug 27 : Under the scanner of various investigating agencies, the right-wing Sanatan Sanstha on Monday demanded that the word 'secular' be removed from the Indian Constitution.
Sanstha spokesperson Chetan Rajhans said the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added in the Constitution by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
"So, if there is a provision to add words, these can also be removed by the same provisions," he told a media conference in Mumbai.
Facing a barrage of questions, Rajhans said that the issue is "nothing new" and that the organisation has been demanding this for long through constitutional means.
Although Sanstha as well as another outfit, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, are currently facing the heat of various investigating agencies, Rajhans said none of the two was involved in any terror activity. "These are purely religious organizations," he added.
"We are being defamed in a pre-planned manner. We do not support or approve of violence in any form. Our mission for the past 27 years is to propagate 'dharma and spirituality," Rajhans said.
He also brushed aside any involvement of Sanatan Sanstha in the killings rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, Communist leader Govind Pansare (both in Maharashtra), and author M.M. Kalburgi and journalist Gauri Lankesh (both in Karnataka).
"As per our information, nine persons have been arrested by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorist Squad and the Central Bureau of Investigation. None of them is the Sanatan Sanstha's sadhak (seeker). In fact, we have heard of the five names among the accused for the first time. So nobody should link them with us," Rajhans said.
Besides, he pointed out, neither the ATS-CBI chargesheets nor the remand applications have named Sanatan Sanstha. "It is only parties like the Congress, communists, some intellectuals and thinkers and progressive organisations who are targeting the small organisation," he said.
"Demanding a ban on us or arresting our leader, just because the accused are arrested, is ridiculous," Rajhans 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.
SC to hear plea challenging blocking of YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea seeking quashing of an order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13.
The apex court on May 5 sought responses from the Centre and others on the plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of digital news platform '4PM', which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh.
The plea claimed that the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing "vague" grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the top court's cause list for May 13, the plea is slated to come up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The plea claimed that the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The plea also contended that it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard.
"'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said.
The action was not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press, the plea said.
"The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre to produce the order with "reasons" and "records", if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel.
It also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Rule 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding all requests, complaints and actions taken under the rule.
The plea also sought striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order.
It said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
