Tag: Prashant Bhushan

  • SC notice to HCs on plea for setting up of ‘Gram Nyayalayas’

    By IANS

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a reply from all high courts on a plea for the Centre and all states to take steps to set up ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ under the supervision of the apex court.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, NGO National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and others, submitted before a bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer that despite a direction from the top court in 2020, many states have yet not taken any action.

    He added that these ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ should be such that people may be able to articulate their grievances without requiring a lawyer.

    In 2008, the Parliament passed an Act for setting up ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ at the grassroots level for providing access to justice to citizens at the doorstep.

    The bench, also compromising Justice V. Ramasubramanian, said the high courts should be made a party in the matter as they are the supervisory authority. After hearing arguments, the bench issued notice to the Registrar General of all high courts and made them parties in the case, and scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 5.

    In 2020, the top court directed the state governments, which are yet to come out with notifications for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’, to do so. It also asked the high courts to expedite the process of consultation with state governments.

    The plea contended that sections in the Act provide that the state government in consultation with the high court will appoint a ‘Nyayadhikari’ for each ‘Gram Nyayalaya’.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a reply from all high courts on a plea for the Centre and all states to take steps to set up ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ under the supervision of the apex court.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, NGO National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and others, submitted before a bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer that despite a direction from the top court in 2020, many states have yet not taken any action.

    He added that these ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ should be such that people may be able to articulate their grievances without requiring a lawyer.

    In 2008, the Parliament passed an Act for setting up ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ at the grassroots level for providing access to justice to citizens at the doorstep.

    The bench, also compromising Justice V. Ramasubramanian, said the high courts should be made a party in the matter as they are the supervisory authority. After hearing arguments, the bench issued notice to the Registrar General of all high courts and made them parties in the case, and scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 5.

    In 2020, the top court directed the state governments, which are yet to come out with notifications for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’, to do so. It also asked the high courts to expedite the process of consultation with state governments.

    The plea contended that sections in the Act provide that the state government in consultation with the high court will appoint a ‘Nyayadhikari’ for each ‘Gram Nyayalaya’.

  • Big question mark over Election Commission’s fairness in last few years: Prashant Bhushan

    By PTI

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

  • Hijab Ban| Rules say that educational institutions have power to prescribe uniform: Supreme Court

    Express News Service

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

  • Union minister V Muraleedharan, opposition face-off at seminar on democracy

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Union minister V Muraleedharan on Friday made a slew of suggestions to opposition parties, including on internal democracy and promoting talent, at a seminar and left soon citing “pressing engagements”, sparking protests from other participants.

    The Minister of State for External Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs was speaking at a seminar ‘Challenges Before Democracy’ to celebrate the 86th birth anniversary of late M P Veerendra Kumar, a socialist leader and Chairman of the Mathrubhumi Media Group.

    The other speakers at the seminar were senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Congress spokesman Pawan Khera, RJD leader Manoj Kumar Jha, CPI(M) leader John Brittas, BJP leader Swapan Dasgupta and activist Yogendra Yadav.

    “In the present context, the opposition feels that any achievement of India will go into the account of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and hence it chooses not to applaud it. Is it good for democracy,” Muraleedharan asked.

    In his 30-minute speech, mostly in Malayalam, Muraleedharan said in a democracy everyone has the right to criticise, but in his home state Kerala, a person could be put in jail for criticising the chief minister.

    In an apparent jibe at the Congress, he said people protest on the roads across the country saying ‘democracy is in peril’ when central government agencies summon a person for questioning following the due process of the law.

    As Muraleedharan began to leave, Khera and Yadav asked him to at least hear the opposition response to the points he had raised in his speech.

    “You call this democracy when the government is not ready to listen to what we have to say? This is not acceptable,” Khera said.

    In his keynote speech, Bhushan said the role of money power in democracy had increased manifold with the introduction of electoral bonds, removal of limit on contributions to political parties by big corporations and allowing subsidiaries of foreign companies to make donations to political parties.

    He also referred to lack of access to justice, delay in court cases and not having competent judges also posed challenges before democracy.

    “If we have to reclaim democracy there will have to be a very robust citizen’s movement across the country. That movement will have to create its own media organisation that can be used by citizens to spread the right information,” Bhushan said.

    “Our republic has been brought to the brink and if we do not rise to the challenge the situation will become irretrievable,” he said.

    Khera said Congress alone will not be able to fight this battle to reclaim democracy without the participation of the civil society or the media.

    Jha, the Rajya Sabha member from RJD, said the real challenge was not to realise that there were challenges to democracy in the country.

    Yadav, who heads Swaraj Abhiyan, said when solemn memorial lectures are used to score petty political points one realises something was really wrong with democracy.

    NEW DELHI: Union minister V Muraleedharan on Friday made a slew of suggestions to opposition parties, including on internal democracy and promoting talent, at a seminar and left soon citing “pressing engagements”, sparking protests from other participants.

    The Minister of State for External Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs was speaking at a seminar ‘Challenges Before Democracy’ to celebrate the 86th birth anniversary of late M P Veerendra Kumar, a socialist leader and Chairman of the Mathrubhumi Media Group.

    The other speakers at the seminar were senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Congress spokesman Pawan Khera, RJD leader Manoj Kumar Jha, CPI(M) leader John Brittas, BJP leader Swapan Dasgupta and activist Yogendra Yadav.

    “In the present context, the opposition feels that any achievement of India will go into the account of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and hence it chooses not to applaud it. Is it good for democracy,” Muraleedharan asked.

    In his 30-minute speech, mostly in Malayalam, Muraleedharan said in a democracy everyone has the right to criticise, but in his home state Kerala, a person could be put in jail for criticising the chief minister.

    In an apparent jibe at the Congress, he said people protest on the roads across the country saying ‘democracy is in peril’ when central government agencies summon a person for questioning following the due process of the law.

    As Muraleedharan began to leave, Khera and Yadav asked him to at least hear the opposition response to the points he had raised in his speech.

    “You call this democracy when the government is not ready to listen to what we have to say? This is not acceptable,” Khera said.

    In his keynote speech, Bhushan said the role of money power in democracy had increased manifold with the introduction of electoral bonds, removal of limit on contributions to political parties by big corporations and allowing subsidiaries of foreign companies to make donations to political parties.

    He also referred to lack of access to justice, delay in court cases and not having competent judges also posed challenges before democracy.

    “If we have to reclaim democracy there will have to be a very robust citizen’s movement across the country. That movement will have to create its own media organisation that can be used by citizens to spread the right information,” Bhushan said.

    “Our republic has been brought to the brink and if we do not rise to the challenge the situation will become irretrievable,” he said.

    Khera said Congress alone will not be able to fight this battle to reclaim democracy without the participation of the civil society or the media.

    Jha, the Rajya Sabha member from RJD, said the real challenge was not to realise that there were challenges to democracy in the country.

    Yadav, who heads Swaraj Abhiyan, said when solemn memorial lectures are used to score petty political points one realises something was really wrong with democracy.

  • Do not want to give priority to senior lawyers in mentioning of cases for urgent hearing, says SC

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday said the new system of mentioning cases for urgent hearing before apex court officials instead of its benches directly has been put in place to ensure that senior lawyers are not given “special priority” over their junior colleagues.

    “We do not want to give any special priority to the senior lawyers and deprive the junior lawyers of their opportunities. So this system was made, where all can make the mention before the mentioning Registrar”, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said when lawyer Prashant Bhushan raised the issue.

    Bhushan, who was appearing on behalf of NGO ‘Common Cause’ in connection with a PIL related to coal scam, said matters keep ‘languishing’ for months despite being mentioned before the officers for urgent listing before benches.

    “Even after urgent memos are filed, matters are languishing”, the lawyer said.

    “First you go to the mentioning Registrar, and if it is disallowed, your right to mention before the bench is automatic,” the bench, also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant, said, adding that this practice ensures that no lawyer gets the special priority.

    CJI Ramana has discontinued the practice of allowing direct mentioning of cases for urgent listing before the benches and has instead asked the lawyers to mention their cases before the designated official.

    Bhushan said the rejection was not the issue, the point was even if the mentioning is allowed, the case does not get listed before the bench for hearing.

    The CJI asked Bhushan to bring a specific case to his notice for necessary action.

    “You can automatically mention it if it is rejected. Present a specific case I will look into it,” the CJI said.

    Lawyer M L Sharma also raised the same issue of non-listing of cases despite mentioning before the designated court official.

  • Consider convening meet of panel for CBI director’s appointment before May 2: SC to Centre

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, alleged that the government is delaying the meeting of the selection committee as it wants to bypass the present Chief Justice of India.

  • Civil society members appeal for repealing new farm laws, seek withdrawal of FIRs against journalists

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Civil society members, including Aruna Roy, Prashant Bhushan and Harsh Mander, appealed on Friday for repealing of the three farm laws, enacting a legislation to guarantee MSP and withdrawing all cases filed under UAPA against farmer leaders.

    In a joint statement, a national call was given by civil society to stand in solidarity with the farmers’ movement on Mahatma Gandhi’s death anniversary on Saturday.

    “This is a call for a fast during the day on January 30 and to keep a minute of silence across the country at 5 pm, to express solidarity with all struggles, satyagrahas and peaceful non-violent movements with a commitment to democratic and ethical probity,” they said.

    ​ALSO READ | Bhim Army chief meets Rakesh Tikait at Ghazipur border, offers help to strengthen farmers’ protest

    “We appeal to all people and groups to fast and keep a minute of silence tomorrow and organise different kinds of public events to uphold peaceful struggles,” it said.

    They also appealed for repealing the three farm laws, enacting a legislation to guarantee MSP and withdrawing all cases filed under UAPA against farmer leaders, it said.

    The activists demanded that the FIR filed in Uttar Pradesh on Thursday against journalists must be withdrawn and a free-and-fair investigation should take place into the violence on Republic Day.

    The appeal was issued by former Union finance minister Yashwant Sinha, former Navy chief Admiral L Ramdas, advocate Prashant Bhuhsan, former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, activists Harsh Mander and Shabnam Hashmi, former Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed, among others.

    ALSO READ | Farmers to hold ‘Sadbhavna Diwas’ on January 30, observe day-long fast

    “Despite the clear, unequivocal condemnation by farmers leaders, of any violence on January 26, the government has activated the criminal justice machinery to lodge FIRs against them under a range of criminal laws, including shockingly an anti-terror law, the UAPA,” they said.

    This is now becoming a familiar playbook of the ruling establishment, last seen when the citizenship movement against the CAA-NRC and its young leadership was similarly “vilified, terrorised”, charged under the UAPA and arrested, they said.

    “The fake state narrative of the farmers movement as a ‘violent conspiracy’ against India, is an exact copy-paste of the narrative we saw last year around the anti-CAA movement, once again being spun to try and tar and suppress the democratic voices of our people.

    ALSO WATCH:

    “Violent mobs are being deliberately incited, to target individual farmers leaders and at protest sites. Again, a page from the familiar playbook of last year,” it said.

    A press conference was organised today In support of the farmers’ movement and to strongly condemn the government’s attempt to criminalise and break” a legitimate people’s movement.

    It was addressed by Bhushan, Hashmi, Gandhi Peace Foundation secretary Kumar Prashant, economist Atul Sood and Nation For Farmers co-convener Dinesh Abrol.

  • Now again Hindu Terror propaganda by Janeudhari Rahul and Sidharamaiah for gettting support of Jihadi PFI

    lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_1 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_2 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_3 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_4 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_5 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_6 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_7 lokshakti-12-jan-2018_Page_8

    Hindu Terror propaganda, Janeudhari Rahu, Sidharamaiah, Jihadi PFI, KFD, Surgical strike, Jignesh, Umar Khalid, Kanhaiya, Prashant Bhushan, Karnatak, Patra, ISIS, Samjhauta Express, Blast planted by Pak, UPA, AMU, AISECT, JNU, Hamid Ansari