Why Did Delhi Court Summon Youtuber Dhruv Rathee? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggUtAKaHfY  | Defamation | BJP | Suresh Nakhua HW News English
Jul 24, 2024 #DhruvRathee #BJP #Defamation
Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, a spokesperson for the Mumbai unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  His lawsuit seeks Rs. 20 lakhs in damages, alleging that Rathee's comments in a video have caused significant harm to his reputation.

The court has not only summoned Rathee but also issued notices to Google LLC and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) as parties involved in the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory content.

 https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-court-summons-youtuber-dhruv-rathee-in-defamation-case-filed-by-bjp-leader-101721807156399.html Nakhua in his suit filed against Rathi, Google LLC and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) submitted that Rathi had on July 7 uploaded a video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee” where he referred Nakhua as a part of violent and abusive trolls for “no rhyme or reason” in order to bring down his reputation.

Nakhua had thus sought permanent injunction against Rathee and restraining him from posting, tweeting, publishing, creating or sharing any derogatory and harmful material on any online/offline platform regarding him or the BJP.

Sixteen prominent academics released a statement expressing concern over the prolonged detention without trial of writers, journalists and activists who were critical of the Union government.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has voiced his support for this statement, among whose authors are author Amitav Ghosh and political philosopher Martha Nussbaum.

https://thewire.in/rights/academics-call-global-attention-to-prolonged-detention-of-journalists-activists-without-trial 

28/03/2024

On May 19, YouTuber and political commentator Dhruv Rathee posted a 29-minute video titled ‘The Narendra Modi Files | A DICTATOR Mentality?’.

https://thewire.in/rights/dhruv-rathee-modi-video-vasai-police-adesh-bansode 

The video, like most of his work, went viral in no time and garnered over 15 million views. In this video, Rathee critically looks at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governance over the past two decades – first, as the chief minister of Gujarat and then as the country’s prime minister. He terms his approach “dictatorial”.

While the video continues to be widely shared across social media platforms, the Vasai-based Manikpur police have considered sharing of this video a “crime”. 

The police have registered an FIR against Adesh Bansode, a city-based lawyer and also a state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) for sharing the video on a WhatsApp group of lawyers.

A first information report was subsequently registered and Bansode was booked under section Section 188, 171 (F), 171 (G) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Section 188 applies when a person tends to or causes danger to human life with his disobedience; Section 171 (F) defines punishment for undue influence or personation at an election and Section 171 (G) is applied when a person makes false statement in connection with an election.

by Sukanya Shantha

01/06/2024

Educate cops on free speech: Supreme Court quashes FIR on Article 370 protest, greeting Pakistan.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/educate-cops-on-free-speech-supreme-court-quashes-fir-on-article-370-protest-greeting-pakistan-9202022/

The bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said,

“Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir.” It said “describing the day the abrogation happened as a ‘Black Day’ is an expression of protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive”.

Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code penalises “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”

“The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). Every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. ..“But the protest or dissent,” it said, “must be within four corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set-up...Pointing to “the WhatsApp status of the appellant” Hajam, it said, “This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India” and “does not reflect any intention to do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).”..

Setting aside the High Court ruling, the bench said “the High Court has held that the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled out… “The test to be applied,” it said, is “not the effect of the words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of the IPC”.