Unfortunate, have to prove daughter's innocence every time: Nirbhaya's mother
New Delhi, May 4: As Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the plea of two condemned convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape and murder case, the victim's mother said it was unfortunate for them to prove their daughters innocence every time in the court.
"Even today in the court it was said that my daughter suffered minor injuries and the crime committed on her is not that heinous for death penalty, unfortunate that every time we have to prove in court that our daughter was innocent," she told the media.
The apex court had on May 5 last year upheld the verdict of the Delhi HC and the trial court awarding the capital punishment to four convicts - Mukesh (29), Pawan (22), Vinay Sharma (23) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31) for gangraping a 23-year-old student inside a moving bus in South Delhi.
"There have been times when my faith in law and justice is restored but as the court hearings get deferred by I feel extremely hopeless.
"I have been struggling for 6 years but still justice has not been served. Nirbhaya's culprits are still alive and I request the authorities to take the appropriate action to ensure they meet their deserved end soon," she added.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan reserved the order after hearing arguments on behalf of the convicts Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta.
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.
