Right-Wing troll army slams Judge Niyay Bindu who granted bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal
New Delhi: Delhi court Special Judge Niyay Bindu has become the target of online troll from influential right-wing accounts on 'X' (formerly known as Twitter) following her decision to grant bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a liquor policy case.
These accounts have accused the judge of failing to thoroughly review the documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before making her decision.
The backlash comes after Special Judge Niyay Bindu granted bail to Kejriwal, a decision that has been met with disdain by supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their associated online influencers. These individuals have used social media to question the judge's diligence and impartiality, alleging that she did not properly consider the extensive documentation provided by the ED.
Fact-checker and Alt News Co-founder Mohammed Zubair highlighted the wave of online attacks by sharing screenshots of several critical tweets. Zubair commented on his 'X' account, stating, "Tweets by influential right-wing X accounts targeting Delhi court Special Judge Niyay Bindu because she delivered a judgment they and their leaders didn't like. This is dangerous and scary."
Supporters of Judge Bindu have come forward to clarify the legal processes involved in bail hearings, which have been misunderstood by the critics. One user, replying to Zubair’s tweet, provided a detailed explanation:
"1. Scope of Bail Hearings: Bail hearings primarily focus on the arguments and key evidence presented by both parties rather than a detailed review of all submitted documents.
2. Judicial Efficiency: The judge acknowledged the volume of documents but emphasized the impracticality of reviewing thousands of pages at this juncture. This does not imply a neglect of duty but rather a focus on pertinent issues relevant to the bail decision. Also, did Swarn Kanta read all the 55,000 documents while rejecting the bail of AAP leaders (Manish Sisodia etc)."
The user emphasized that bail hearings are designed to address the immediate concerns related to bail, relying on critical evidence and arguments rather than a comprehensive analysis of all case documents. This perspective is shared by many legal experts who argue that the role of the judge in such hearings is to weigh the necessity and justification for bail, rather than delve into the full depth of the case, which would be more appropriate during a trial.
The online criticism against Judge Bindu has raised concerns about the increasing pressure on the judiciary from social media. Critics argue that such campaigns can undermine judicial independence and the fair administration of justice.
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.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
