The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of social media posts and videos alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Congress leader Ragini Nayak, citing false information and potential harm to Sharma’s reputation. The court mandated the removal of specified posts, directing the privatization of public domain videos until further orders, and affirmed that this action does not violate freedom of speech.
Former Supreme Court Judge Madan Lokur emphasized the constitutional right to silence for arrested individuals during a discussion on freedom of expression. He highlighted the interconnectedness of fundamental rights and warned about suppressing freedom of speech. Parallelly, Prabir Purkayastha reflected on his experiences and emphasized democratic resilience and support for those imprisoned.
![[ Controversial Tweet] Bhushan Accuses Judge of Political Dog-Whistling, Must Read SC EVM'S Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-9-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Prominent public figure Prashant Bhushan accused a judge of politically motivated “dog-whistling” in a controversial tweet. His critics attribute this to his history of judicial criticism and losing public interest litigations. The debate raises questions about judicial integrity and the need for respectful critique. Bhushan’s conduct may lead to potential contempt proceedings, provoking concerns about free speech.
Yesterday(on 15th March), The Supreme Court of India has granted interim anticipatory bail to Assam poet Rakib Uddin Ahmed, accused of posting an obscene poem about Hindu deities. The case sparks a debate on religious sentiments and freedom of expression. Despite significant pressure, the court extended protection after the poet issued a public apology.
In Karnataka, three individuals were granted bail by the Bengaluru Trial Court for allegedly chanting pro-Pakistan slogans at the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. They must each post a Rs 1 lakh bond and provide two sureties, and comply with travel restrictions and court attendance. The defense argues that their arrest lacked procedural validity. The Court’s decision aligns with guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests.