News Analysis India

Tag: fundamental rights

  • Plea in SC seeks direction to empower citizens to petition Parliament

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre and others to take steps to create an appropriate system which empowers citizens to petition Parliament and seek initiation of deliberations on issues highlighted by them.

    The plea came up for hearing on Friday before a bench comprising justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna.

    The bench asked the counsel appearing for petitioner Karan Garg to serve a copy of the plea to the Centre’s lawyer and posted the matter in February. Advocate Rohan J Alva appeared for the petitioner.

    The plea has sought a declaration that it is the fundamental right of citizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to directly petition Parliament to seek initiation of a debate, discussion and deliberation on the issues highlighted by them in their petitions.

    “The present writ petition prays that it is imperative for the respondents (Centre and others) to take substantive steps in order to ensure that citizens can have their voices heard in Parliament without facing undue barriers and difficulties,” it said.

    The plea said as an ordinary citizen of the country, the petitioner felt “disempowered” when it came to participation in the democratic process and after people cast their votes and elect representatives, there is no scope for any further participation.

    It said there is a complete absence of any formal mechanism by which citizens can engage with the lawmakers and take steps in order to ensure that issues which are of vital importance are debated in Parliament.

    “The absence of this mechanism creates a void between elected representatives and the citizens. The people are disconnected from the law-making process. This distancing of the citizens from their inherent rights to fully participate in Indian democracy is a matter of grave concern and is an issue which needs to be immediately addressed,” the plea said.

    It said a system by which the citizens can directly petition Parliament is already in place in the United Kingdom and it has been working well for several years.

    It also said that if citizens have the ability to engage with the Centre and Parliament at a deeper level, it may reduce the burden on the apex court and high courts “since there may exist an effective and alternative remedy for espousing and pursuing public interest causes.”

    The plea said citizens have a fundamental right to participate in democratic affairs and are constitutionally entitled to present workable and constructive suggestions to Parliament on matters of national importance so that public interest is appropriately safeguarded.

    “The current system does not fully allow citizens to initiate discussions in Parliament by moving appropriate petitions,” it added.

    The petition said formulation of well-reasoned and reasonable rules which allow citizens to directly petition Parliament will usher in a transformative era of democratic governance and create an environment for robust engagement between the people of the country and the members of Parliament.

    It has sought direction from the Centre and others to expeditiously take steps to create an appropriate system or reasonable rules and regulations which empower citizens to petition Parliament and seek initiation of a debate on the issues highlighted by them.

    NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre and others to take steps to create an appropriate system which empowers citizens to petition Parliament and seek initiation of deliberations on issues highlighted by them.

    The plea came up for hearing on Friday before a bench comprising justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna.

    The bench asked the counsel appearing for petitioner Karan Garg to serve a copy of the plea to the Centre’s lawyer and posted the matter in February. Advocate Rohan J Alva appeared for the petitioner.

    The plea has sought a declaration that it is the fundamental right of citizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to directly petition Parliament to seek initiation of a debate, discussion and deliberation on the issues highlighted by them in their petitions.

    “The present writ petition prays that it is imperative for the respondents (Centre and others) to take substantive steps in order to ensure that citizens can have their voices heard in Parliament without facing undue barriers and difficulties,” it said.

    The plea said as an ordinary citizen of the country, the petitioner felt “disempowered” when it came to participation in the democratic process and after people cast their votes and elect representatives, there is no scope for any further participation.

    It said there is a complete absence of any formal mechanism by which citizens can engage with the lawmakers and take steps in order to ensure that issues which are of vital importance are debated in Parliament.

    “The absence of this mechanism creates a void between elected representatives and the citizens. The people are disconnected from the law-making process. This distancing of the citizens from their inherent rights to fully participate in Indian democracy is a matter of grave concern and is an issue which needs to be immediately addressed,” the plea said.

    It said a system by which the citizens can directly petition Parliament is already in place in the United Kingdom and it has been working well for several years.

    It also said that if citizens have the ability to engage with the Centre and Parliament at a deeper level, it may reduce the burden on the apex court and high courts “since there may exist an effective and alternative remedy for espousing and pursuing public interest causes.”

    The plea said citizens have a fundamental right to participate in democratic affairs and are constitutionally entitled to present workable and constructive suggestions to Parliament on matters of national importance so that public interest is appropriately safeguarded.

    “The current system does not fully allow citizens to initiate discussions in Parliament by moving appropriate petitions,” it added.

    The petition said formulation of well-reasoned and reasonable rules which allow citizens to directly petition Parliament will usher in a transformative era of democratic governance and create an environment for robust engagement between the people of the country and the members of Parliament.

    It has sought direction from the Centre and others to expeditiously take steps to create an appropriate system or reasonable rules and regulations which empower citizens to petition Parliament and seek initiation of a debate on the issues highlighted by them.

  • Hijab ban: Plea moved in SC challenging Karnataka High Court verdict

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A special leave petition has been filed in the Supreme court by a Udupi student against the Karnataka High Court court order that ruled that wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an essential religious practice in the Islamic faith and prescribing uniform is not a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim girls say they will not go to college without hijab and fight it legally

    The plea states that the high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “… High Court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is submitted that since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought not to have been applied by the Hon’ble High Court in this instant case,” the plea reads.

    It has been said in the plea that the high court has failed to note that the Indian legal system explicitly recognizes the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.

    ALSO READ | Hope attempts to push Muslim women into four walls of house fail, says Kerala Guv welcoming Hijab verdict

    “…It is pertinent to note that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet. Order IX, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules makes a special provision for affidavits that are to be sworn by pardanashin women…” It added.

    Upholding the government order dated February 5, 2022, banning the hijab in classrooms, a full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi pronounced the verdict on a cluster of petitions questioning the order passed by the state government banning the wearing of hijab in classrooms.

  • Algorithms of social media platforms should not violate fundamental rights: Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: No algorithm of any social media platform should violate fundamental rights of Indians, and the laws and jurisprudence would need to evolve continuously to keep pace with the changing nature of internet, Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has said.

    The remarks by the Minister of State for IT come amid allegations of Facebook’s system and algorithms fuelling hate speech and fake news.

    Recently, revelations by whistle-blower Frances Haugen have led to global concerns that Facebook allegedly put profit before public good, and did not do enough to shed its ‘growth at all costs’ culture that propelled its rise to capture 2.

    91 billion monthly active users globally, including over 400 million in India.

    When asked about what action the Indian government would look at in the backdrop of the allegations made by the whistleblower, Chandrasekhar said there are algorithms that are replacing human intervention and are also prone to failure.

    “We understand that there are algorithms that are replacing human intervention and those algorithms are also prone to failure, which may be just unconscious failure or it could be deliberate bias and that there is a need for algorithms to be designed by these platform that are not infringing the rights of our Indian citizens to Article 14 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of speech), and Article 21 (right to privacy),” he told PTI.

    These are fundamental rights of Indian citizens and “no algorithm of any platform should be able to violate that, that we are aware of”, Chandrasekhar said.

    Noting that the government is very much aware of the issues of algorithmic bias, Chandrasekhar said he was personally aware about it and had also spoken about the same in 2019 in Parliament.

    There is a “basket of user harm issues” arising every day in online space, the minister said, adding that “there is a need for our laws and jurisprudence to continuously evolve and keep up with the changing nature of the internet and all of the good and the bad”.

    “Now, that is a process that our legal rules and laws, as they evolve, will start addressing like I said, there is a basket of user harm issues that are arising every day. IT Act is from 2008 and 2000. The rules are more recent,” he observed.

    According to him, the government and the IT Ministry understand the constantly evolving nature of cyberspace and the internet, and will continuously engage with industry and users on the issues.

    “We will constantly be trying to evolve a framework where consumers are protected, they find that the internet is safe and trusted for them and that the intermediaries are accountable. This, we will continue to do, and whether it is on algorithms or on any other issue, we will continue to make our efforts in doing that,” Chandrasekhar said.

    Haugen, an employee of the Facebook integrity team until May 2021, leaked tens of thousands of internal documents, including many from employee discussion sites, company presentations and research papers, that have unveiled the inner workings of Facebook.

    She has suggested that Facebook made changes to its “dangerous” algorithms that contributed to divisiveness in society, and realised these tweaks kept people returning to the platform.

    She has also filed complaints against the company with the US securities regulator.

    Following the revelations, the ministry reportedly wrote to Facebook asking for information around the algorithms and processes used by the platform and sought details of steps taken to safeguard users.

    Facebook has recently rebranded itself as Meta.

    As per data cited by the Indian government earlier this year, there are 53 crore WhatsApp users, 41 crore Facebook subscribers and 21 crore Instagram account holders in the country.

    Earlier this year, India enforced new IT intermediary rules aimed to bring greater accountability for big tech companies, including Twitter and Facebook.

    The rules require social media platforms to remove any content flagged by authorities within 36 hours and set up a robust complaint redressal mechanism with an officer being based in the country.

    Social media companies are required to take down posts depicting nudity or morphed photos within 24 hours of receiving a complaint.

    Significant social media companies — those with over 50 lakh users — also have to publish a monthly compliance report disclosing details of complaints received and action taken as also details of contents removed proactively.

    According to Chandrasekhar, the IT Ministry is also planning a massive outreach next year in the form of a dialogue with public, consumer forums, academia, industry and others on fast-evolving online space and what more needs to be done to ensure that internet is open, safe and trusted.

  • Person cannot be denied right to reside, move freely throughout country on flimsy grounds: Supreme Court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A person cannot be denied on flimsy grounds his fundamental right to reside or move freely anywhere in the country, the Supreme Court has said.

    The observation by a bench comprising justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian came while setting aside an externment order against a journalist and social worker issued by the district authorities in Amravati city, Maharashtra.

    “A person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds,” the bench said.

    Externment orders prevent the movement of a person in certain areas.

    The top court said that the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases to maintain law and order.

    The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, had passed the externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing journalist Rahmat Khan not to enter or return to Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for one year from the date on which he leaves or is taken out.

    Khan had been filing applications under the Right to Information Act, seeking information from authorities on alleged illegalities in the disbursement of funds to various madrassas including Al Haram International English School run by Joha Education and Charitable Welfare Trust, and Priyadarshini Urdu Primary and Pre-Secondary School run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society.

    Khan contended that cases were initiated against him as a counterblast to the steps taken by him to put an end to alleged misappropriation of public funds and to initiate action against those involved in illegal practices.

    On October 13, 2017, Khan requested the Collector and the police to investigate the alleged misappropriation of government grants by madrassas in collusion with government officials.

    In retaliation, affected persons filed complaints against him, the appellant said.

    Later, a Show Cause Notice dated April 3, 2018 was issued to Khan from the office of the Assistant Police Commissioner, Gadge Nagar Division, Amravati informing him of the initiation of Externment proceeding against him under Section 56(1)(a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

    The apex court said that sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act are intended to prevent lawlessness and deal with a class of lawless elements in society who cannot be brought to book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial trial.

    “An externment order may sometimes be necessary for the maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent a breach of public tranquility and peace, the bench said.

    The top court said it is patently clear that the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the appellant against government officials, some madrassas and persons connected with them who later lodged FIRs against the appellant.

    The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice, the bench said.

    The top court said the deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat, prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint a colour of intense gravity.

    The bench said that even assuming that there was substance in the allegation, which appears to be doubtful, an order of externment was unwarranted.

    If those complainants had not indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear, it said.

    “Even otherwise, a threat to lodge complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, more so, when the responses of government authorities to queries raised by the appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones or without substance,” the apex court said.

  • Experts see ground for WhatsApp to file lawsuit

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI:  With the tussle between Centre and WhatsApp escalating, and the latter filing a lawsuit against the government on Wednesday, experts felt there are technical difficulties, as mentioned in the petition. Medianama founder and digital rights activist Nikhil Pahwa explained in a Twitter thread that for WhatsApp to enable identifying the originator of even one message, it has to re-architect the entire platform. “This potentially compromises all its users. The court will have to decide if it is proportionate to violate the privacy of everyone to identify one sender of a message,” wrote Pahwa.

    The Centre had notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in February. Social media intermediaries were given an additional window of three months to fall in line. “The petition has been rightly preferred, as requiring WhatsApp or other social media giants to identify the first originator of the message means breaking the end-to-end encryption.

    This violates the fundamental rights of a citizen including privacy, freedom of speech and expression. It may have practical and technical difficulties as referred to as technical infeasibility in the petition. That will require every message to have metadata attached to it,” said cyber lawyer Ankur Raheja. He added a separate legislation may be needed on practicalities of various factors, and to ensure it does not violate fundamental rights.

    Cyber law expert Pavan Duggal pointed out that WhatsApp challenging the rule on the ground of privacy violation represents an important step in the evolving cyberlaw jurisprudence in India. “India is carving out its own distinctive new legal jurisprudence on intermediaries by insisting on the criminal liability of such platforms. Hence, till such time the court doesn’t set aside or stay the operations of the rules, these rules will have to be complied with by all intermediaries,” said Duggal, on non-compliance that can lead to consequences, including intermediaries being liable for punishment.

    The Internet Freedom Foundation, an NGO that conducts advocacy on digital rights and liberties, had pointed out the ‘troubling aspects’ of the rules. “This is severely detrimental to the fundamental rights of speech and privacy, since it will essentially undermine end-to end encryption and likely cause a chilling effect on speech in private conversations,” a May 24 post pointed out.