The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a prosecution complaint against 12 accused Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terrorists under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The complaint has been filed before Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
The complaint is based on the charge sheet filed by NIA against FIR registered in October 2011 under Sections 120-B read with 121-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 17, 18, 39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
According to the press release of ED, Mohammad Shafi Shah and his associates were involved in bomb blasts in Jammu and Kashmir. At the time of arrest, a huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives were recovered from them.
Support from Pakistan
In the investigations under PMLA, the security agencies found that Hizb-ul-Mujahideen was funding terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. Syed Salahuddin, the self-styled commander, based in Rawalpindi Pakistan, was providing support for the transfer of funds.
The press release further states that an organisation named JKART (Jammu & Kashmir Affectees Relief Trust) was involved in procuring funds from the terror outfits under the supervision of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and ISI. The funds were sent to India via Hawala Channel, barter traders and human carriers.
These funds were distributed among kin of active and dead Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terrorists using different channels including Hawala, Human Carriers and banking. Mohammad Shafi Shah was the mastermind behind the distribution of the funds.
The investigation agencies attached 13 properties belonging to seven terrorists totalling to Rs 1.22 crores under PMLA.
The names of the accused are:
Mohammad Shafi Shah alias Doctor/Dawood/Nisar
Talib Lali alias Talib Hussain Lali/Waseem/Abu Umer
Mohd. Yusuf Shah alias Syed Salahuddin
Gulam Nabi Khan alias Amir Khan
Umer Farooq Shera alias Mehboob-ul-Haq
Manzoor Ahmed Dar alias Masroor Dar
ZaffarHussainBhat alias Khursheed
Nazir Ahmad Dar alias Shabir Ellahi/Khalid
Abdul MajeedSofi alias MajeedBisati/Shaheen
Muzaffar Ahmad Dar alias Gaznavi/Mohd Ali
Mushtaq Ahmad Lone alias Mushtaq Aalam
Mubarak Shah
ED has requested the court in the prosecution complaint to award punishment to all of the accused and confiscate the attached properties.
Since the Supreme Court of India passed the judgment in favour of Ram Lalla Virajman and allowed construction of Ram Mandir ending the decades-long land dispute in Ayodhya, there have been many rumours floating around the money to be used in the construction of Ram Mandir.
Around Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan ceremony on 5th August 2020, some elements who are against the construction of Ram Mandir alleged that the government of India is spending taxpayers money on Bhoomi Pujan and Ram Mandir construction.
Statue of Unity, Gujarat: Complete (Rs 3,000 Crore) Ram Mandir, Ayodhya : In progress (Estimates awaited) Central Vista, Delhi: Approved (Rs 20,000 Crore) Source: Public Money
Train tickets for migrant workers: (Rs 500) Govt: Centre will pay 85 %, states will pay 15 % Discuss.
Is government spending money on Bhoomi Pujan or Ram Mandir?
OpIndia contacted Champat Rai, Spokesperson, Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerath Kshetra Trust in the matter. When we asked about who paid for the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony, he said that the trust will bear the expenses for the ceremony. However, they have not received the bills yet, but as soon as they get the bills from the suppliers, they will initiate the payment process.
On the question of opposition leaders like Owaisi raising questions on the construction of Ram Mandir or Bhoomi Pujan and comparing it to Iftar Parties organized by state governments, Champat Rai refused to comment and said he is not interested in political statements. He added that they could say whatever they want. It does not matter to him.
Money donated by Government of India for Ram Mandir construction
The Indian Government indeed donated money for the construction of Ram Mandir. The first donation of Re.1 (one rupee) made to the Ram Mandir Trust was made by the Union government after Trust’s formation. After the first donation, no money was donated by the union government for the construction.
Money donated by Yogi Adityanath for the construction of Ram Mandir
In March 2020, Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister Uttar Pradesh had donated Rs 11 lakh for the construction of Ram Mandir. However, the funds were donated from his own savings and not from UP government’s funds. A cheque that he presented to the Ram Mandir Trust was shared widely on social media.
The cost of the Prime Minister’s visit and security
The security of the Prime Minister is the responsibility of the union government. The Union government finances the Special Protection Group that specifically takes care of the protection of the Prime Minister of India. If the Prime Minister is visiting any event for any reason, the SPG works with the local security agencies to ensure PM’s security.
Did Government of India pay for Bhoomi Pujan or Ram Mandir construction?
Our team found out that other than the Rs 1 paid initially to the Trust at the time of its formation, the Union government has not spent a single penny on Bhoomi Pujan or Ram Mandir construction. The claims made by netizens are fake. Ram Mandir Trust is collecting money from Hindu devotees across the world via donations. You can learn how to make a contribution here. The Trust has also requested devotees to donate copper strips for the construction.
The government had made all donations to the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust exempt from Income Tax for the 2020-21 financial year under section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Media reports citing Enforcement Directorate sources state that Rhea Chakraborty, deceased actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s girlfriend, may have been involved in usage and dealing with drugs.
Times Now report states that WhatsApp messages of Rhea Chakraborty with CBI and Narcotics Control Bureau, alleged drug use could be one of the many angles surrounding the mysterious death of Sushant Singh Rajput and controversy surrounding it. The report further states that possible angle is being probed to investigate if drugs were also tried on Sushant Singh Rajput, which may have led to his deteriorated health.
Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in his apartment on 14th June 2020. While it was initially reported as suicide, concerns have been raised over foul play. Eventually, the case was transferred to the CBI for investigation.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the punishment to senior advocate Prashant Bhushan in the contempt of court case regarding his contemptuous tweets against the Institution and the Chief Justices of India.
After listening to the submissions made by Dr Dhawan and Attorney General, Justice Mishra said that it has been “painful” to read all the statements made by Bhushan and his justifications. He stated that this is not the way a Supreme Court lawyer, with 30 years of experience should have behaved.
Justices Mishra and Gavai also pulled up defence counsel, asking if it is appropriate for the petitioner to release his response to the press before filing it in the court. The scathing observation made by the bench was in reference to Bhushan’s petition which was released in the press before it was submitted in the court of law.
Justice Mishra also highlighted that the convict Prashant Bhushan went to the extent of quoting Mahatma Gandhi but couldn’t bring himself to apologise for the disrespectful remarks he made against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices.
AG KK Venugopal asks SC to forgive Bhushan for his contemptuous remarks
Earlier today, Attorney General KK Venugopal averred the instances when SC judges in the past had spoken about the corruption in the judiciary.
The AG then continued asserting that the former justices had sought improvement of administration of justice. He urged the bench to consider Prashant Bhushan’s tweets in the same light and forgive him or perhaps warn him, without meting out any punishment to him.
However, Justice Mishra tersely responded, “We expected something better than this. What can be done if he thinks he has done no wrong.”
The AG then referred to a contempt case against Bhushan for his remarks against AG that he had forged documents in the CBI Director case. The case was withdrawn after Bhushan expressed regret for his comments. The AG continued saying that the court should take a “compassionate view” that the same would be appreciated by the Bar and would befit the status of the Court.
However, Justice Mishra pointed out that it is futile to give warnings to Bhushan since he doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong. Justice Mishra also highlighted that the contempt case against him was withdrawn only after Bhushan had expressed regret over his statements.
In addition to this, AG asked the Court to take Bhushan’s remarks off-the-record and close the case. But Justice Mishra responded, “How can they be taken off-the-record when Bhushan himself says they are his bonafide belief?”
Senior advocate Dhawan urges court to suo motu recall contempt of court verdict against Bhushan
Senior advocate Dhawan representing Prashant Bhushan reminded the bench about the contributions made by Bhushan as amicus and in public causes. He also pointed out how Justice Mishra, who had served as Chief Justice of Calcutta HC did not initiate contempt proceedings against CM Mamata Banerjee when she had called judges corrupt.
Justifying Prashant Bhushan’s contemptuous tweets against the judiciary and the Chief Justices of India, Dr Dhawan argued that courts are not immune to criticism, and urged the bench to suo motu recall the contempt verdict.
National Investigation Agency (NIA) today filed the charge sheet in the 14 February 2019 Pulwama terror attack. The agency has named these 19 people in the same.
i) Masood Azhar Alvi, 52 years, Pakistani national ii) Rouf Asgar Alvi, 47 years, Pakistani national iii) Ammar Alvi, 46 years, Pakistani national iv) Shakir Bashir, 24 Years, r/o Kakapora, Pulwama, J&K. v) Insha Jan, 22 Years r/o Kakapora, Pulwama, J&K vi) Peer Tariq Ahmed Shah, 53 Years, r/o Kakapora, Pulwama, J&K vii) Waiz-ul-Islam, 20 Years, r/o Srinagar, J&K viii) Mohd Abbas Rather, 31 Years, r/o Kakapura, Pulwama, J&K. ix) Bilal Ahmed Kuchhey, 28 years, r/o Hajibal, Lalhar, Pulwama, J&K x) Mohd Iqbal Rather, 25 years, r/o, Charar-e-Shareef, Budgam, J&K. xi) Mohd Ismail, 25 years, r/o Pakistani national xii) Sameer Ahmad Dar, 22 years, r/o Kakapora, Pulwama, Kashmir xiii) Ashaq Ahmed Nengroo, 33 years, r/o Rajpura, Pulwama xiv) Adil Ahmed Dar, 21 years, r/o Kakapora, Pulwama, Kashmir (Killed) xv) Muhammad Umar Farooq, 24 years, r/o Pakistani national (Killed) xvi) Mohd Kamran Ali, 25 years, r/o Pakistani national (Killed) xvii) Sajjad Ahmed Bhat, 19 years, r/o Bijbehera, Anantnag (Killed) xviii) Mudasir Ahmad Khan, 24 years, r/o Awantipura, Pulwama (Killed) xix) Qari Yasir, r/o Pakistani national
The Youtuber named Heer Khan who has been posting vile, hateful anti-Hindu videos on her Youtube channel may face action soon. Prayagraj Police has replied to several netizens who tagged Uttar Pradesh Police and urged to take immediate action against her. They wrote that a complaint had been registered in Khuldabad Police Station, and action is being considered as per the law.
उक्त प्रकरण में थाना खुल्दाबाद में अभियोग पंजीकृत कर आवश्यक विधिक कार्यवाही की जा रही है ।
Some Hindu leaders have also initiated complaints against the said Youtube user. Ramesh Solanki, who has been actively initiating complaints against Hinduphobic content creators from the past few months, posted an update and said that she might get arrested soon.
Heer Khan has made the hateful video private that caused the uproar on social media from her Youtube channel. She has also hidden the video in which her face was visible. In a viral video, the woman was seen using extremely foul, derogatory words against Hindu gods and have been threatening Hindus with rape and violence.
Santola Devi, a 62-year-old sweet shop owner, from Uttar Pradesh’s Jaganipur village of Fatanpur police stations area in Pratapgarh, was mercilessly beaten up by her Muslim neighbour family with sticks and stones on May 26. She was admitted to a Prayagraj hospital in grievous conditions. After fighting for a day, Santola Devi succumbed to her injuries.
Notably, the Hindu woman was brutally hacked to death, merely a day after Eid. Owing to her age, the helpless woman could do little to save herself. OpIndia learnt that she was assaulted merely because she intervened in a fight that transpired between two people and sided with the one who was right. This irked the Muslim man who along with his family had attacked Santola Devi.
However, some media houses had reported that Santola Devi was attacked for raising objections on one Khalil’s goat entering her shop and ruining the sweets which she painstakingly prepared to run the shop she ran with her disabled son. When she complained, Khalil, first got into an argument with her and soon he was joined by his family members who started assaulting the old lady.
Seven members of the Muslim family, including the women of the house Nazbeen Bano and Anari Begum, participated in brutally lynching the old lady.
Muslims in Jaganipur, Pratapgarh called Santola Devi ‘Kaafir’ and an ‘enemy of Islam’
Jaganipur in Uttar Pradesh’s Pratapgarh is a Muslim dominated village. According to reports, for the last 4-5 years, she was regularly being targetted by her Muslim neighbours, who called her a ‘Kaafir’ (a derogatory reference to non-Muslims) and an ‘enemy of Islam’. But what prevented her from leaving the village was her love for her ancestral house and her shop.
After her death, there was a lot of commotion in the village. Initially, the laxity shown by the police and administration in handling the case miffed Santola Devi’s family, who along with other members of the community, protested by placing her dead body on the road and demanding the arrest of all the culprits and compensation for the victim family. Later the SP and the local MLA intervened and took cognisance.
The son of the Hindu woman took to social media to allege police inaction
This three-month-old case recently regained traction after a video of Santola Devi’s son surfaced on social media in which he was seen pleading for justice and making serious allegations against the police.
OpIndia got in touch with one of the three sons of the deceased. Pradeep Kumar, who lives in Goa, gave us the details of what exactly transpired on the day Santola Devi was assaulted.
Pradeep told us that what happened with his mother had been brewing for a very long time. The Muslims in the area had been allegedly harassing, abusing and threatening her for a long time. Santola Devi had often complained about this to the local police, but they did not take her seriously. Whenever Santola Devi spoke about this with Pradeep, he advised her to come and live with either of his two brothers, Sushil Kumar and Satish Kumar who lived nearby, but she did not want to leave her house as it was their ancestral property and she had many memories attached to it, recalled the aggrieved son.
Pradeep told us that one of his brothers is disabled. But that day, when he heard of the assault, he immediately rushed to help his mother. But he could not do anything because of his physical condition. After this, his wife tried to save the mother, all in vain.
In a while, his second brother also reached his mother’s home along with his wife. They rushed to the police station to lodge a complaint against Khalil and his family members. But they were made to wait in the police station for two hours, recolleted Pradeep, furthering that after waiting for almost two hours, the police registered the complaint.
Complaint registered by Pradeep where he accuses police of inaction
The brothers rushed Santola Devi to the local hospital. She was referred to a hospital in Allahabad and then Lucknow, but due to financial constrains, she was brought back to her house. After they somehow arranged for the money, Santola Devi was re-admitted to a nearby hospital where she succumed to her injuries.
Santola Devi’s autopsy report also stated that she sustained injuries at three places and died due to excessive blood loss.
Santola Devi’s post mortem report
Furious at the police authorities, Pradeep said that his 65-year-old mother was mercilessly lynched by 7 people, including Khalil, Aashiq Ali, Arshad, Minaj, Jahanabano and others, but the police did not initiate any action against them until the local MLA, Dheeraj Ojha and the SP took cognizance of the matter.
Family of the Hindu women threatened, pressurised to withdraw case from various quarters
“Even after the woman’s death, the Muslim neighbours had no remorse”, Pradeep told OpIndia. When his brother returned to his mother’s house, the mother of one of the accused – Arshad, came there and threatened him. “Let my children be released from police custody, we will show you’ll”, Arshad’s mother threatened Pradeep’s brother. She added that they have already “sent the money” for the same.
If Pradeep is to be believed, some locals have also been pressurising his family to accept the money the accused family is offering and withdraw the case against them. But Pradeep said sternly, “We want justice, not the money. Today this has happened with us, tomorrow someone else will be targeted”.
Notably, Santola Devi’s son Pradeep has alleged that when his brother spoke to the police regarding the arrest of Jehanabano, the inspector threatened him and said: “You shut up or else you will be trapped and put in jail”. As per Pradeep, the police officer had told him, “Sooner or later, the lady would have anyways died”.
The grief-stricken son said that the reason why he did not return to the village was its hostile environment for the Hindus. “There are hardly 10 Hindu families living amidst 100 Muslim families in Jaganipur village”, said Pradeep adding that the police apathy had added up to the trauma of losing their mother and has been causing immense grief to the family.
6 accused have been arrested
Meanwhile, the Pratapgarh police have taken to Twitter to inform that 6 accused have been arrested.
उक्त प्रकरण में 06 अभियुक्तों को गिरफ्तार किया जा चुका है, एक अभियुक्ता की गिरफ्तारी शेष है जिसके सम्बन्ध में विधिक कार्यवाही की जा रही है।
Santola Devi’s son has also confirmed this to OpIndia, furthering that the accused woman is still absconding. She has been using the burqa to conceal her identity. The victim’s family has, however, demanded that she too is arrested soon. Pradeep is heard mentioning the names of the accused. He names- Khalil, Ashik Ali, Arshad, Hasmin, Minhaj, Bitan, Anno, who he confirms have been arrested, while the police have failed to capture Jehanabano.
Pratapgarh police accused of shielding the Muslim family
One Twitter user has uploaded the video, wherein Santola Devi’s son can be seen pleading for justice.
#शांतिदूतो_का_आतंक एक छोटा सा परिवार था, जो कम आमदनी में भी खुशहाल था। घर की मा, घर की आंचल को जन्म भूमि से बहुत प्यार था।
He accuses the police of favouring the accused family and shielding the culprits. The police were forced to register a case after the local MLA intervened and pressurised them to do so. “However, we are still being pressurised to withdraw the case”, alleged the son.
According to Pradeep, attempts are being made to implicate his brothers in false cases. He has claimed that some persons have threatened him that unless the family takes back their case, they will be harassed by implicating them under false allegations.
The Defence Ministry has imposed a one-year ban on all business dealings with Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited in relation to the Tatra truck scam that was unearthed in 2012 during the UPA era. At that time former Army Chief General VK Singh alleged that he was offered a bribe of Rs.14 crore for clearing procurement of 600 all-terrain Tatra Trucks from Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML).
Defence Ministry has suspended all business dealings with Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited for one year in connection with the Tatra truck deal case. pic.twitter.com/3E6fhz8Y1A
BEML had signed a contract with Tatra Trucks to supply trucks to Indian Army in 1986. For more than two decades, the company had a monopoly in providing vehicles to the army. In 2010, the Indian government changed the rules of procuring the vehicles for the Army so that other companies could apply as a supplier in open bidding. Tatra trucks are widely used by the Army in transport, artillery and mounted guided missile launchers.
BEML, and the involved Army officials had allegedly flouted norms in this regard because Indian Army procurement guidelines state that all purchases are to be made directly from the manufacturing company.
Tatra is a truck manufacturing company from the Czech Republic. It was alleged that the company sold the trucks to Venus Projects, Hong Kong at a 35 per cent discount. Venus Projects is the trading arm of Vectra Worldwide. The company further sold the trucks to Tatra Sipox Ltd, which is the UK based holding company of Vectra Worldwide. It is owned by Ravi Rishi who is known for several controversies. Ravi, a UK citizen, was also questioned by the CBI in 2012.
While Rishi did not pay taxes on the trucks because of the treaty between the two countries, the price of the trucks went up by 30 per cent. Tatra Sipox then sold the trucks to state-owned BEML after further adding 15 to 20 per cent as profit. BEML offered the trucks to the Indian Army after adding 25 to 35 per cent profit on the price, making the MRP much higher than the original price.
If Tatra sold trucks directly to the Indian Army, it could have offered a 35 per cent discount directly that it gave to Venus Projects. However, because the truck went through multiple channels, the final price went up by 100 to 120 per cent compared to the original price.
Thousands of overpriced trucks sold to Indian Army
It was alleged that in 2010, a lobbyist ex-Lieutenant-General Tejinder Singh met then Army Chief General VK Singh for clearance of a batch of 600 trucks that were supposed to be purchased by the Army. For this, he offered General Singh 14 crore as a bribe. General Singh in an interview said that he was offered a bribe to clear 600 sub-standard trucks for purchase. He alleged that in two decades, the company had already supplied 7000 trucks at an inflated price to the Indian Army.
The inflated price was not for the trucks only but also the spare parts. For example, Jacks for the Tatra truck were available at Rs 3000 at that time, but the Army bought them for Rs 30,000 per piece. Indian companies like Ashok Leyland or Tata Motors could have supplied similar trucks for Rs.16-18 lakhs that were bought from Tatra at around Rs.1 crore per truck.
In a statement, then-Defence Minister AK Antony told parliament that when he heard about the bribe in 2010, he was shocked. He said, “I was shocked. I told him to take action, but he said ‘I refuse to pursue the matter.”
CBI Investigation
CBI initiated the investigation in the case in March 2012. In their charge sheet filed in July 2014, the investigation agency said, “AK Antony, the then Raksha Mantri (defence minister), in his statement in parliament March 27, 2012, and the one recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the investigation, has confirmed having been informed by General VK Singh about such offer of bribe made to him about 1-1.5 years ago by Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh.” CBI included a list of 20 witnesses in the case that included Antony’s name.
The scam allegedly led to siphoning off Rs.750 crores from the Government funds. Senior advocate KS Periyaswamy who sought the intervention of President in the case and asked for CBI probe alleged that 15% of the money sanctioned for the procurement of the trucks was siphoned off as commission. CBI submitted a closure report in 2014 saying that it did not find enough evidence in the case. The CBI had informed the court that it did not even find enough evidence to file a charge sheet in the case.
Questions raised by special Court
In 2019, a special Court pulled up CBI and the Ministry of Defence for not following the basic rules. In a strongly-worded statement, the court said that it was shocked to learn that the investigation agency failed to produce the defence procurement manual. Judge Pramachala said, “This is a bit surprising and shocking to see that CBI has completed investigation even without laying a hand over such manual, so as to make the relevant assessment.” The case was pulled for re-consideration. The Ministry of Defence, while mentioning the case, imposed a one-year ban on Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited.
In pre-Independent India, when the Union Jack was still fluttering over the Indian parliament as a sign of slavery, RSS founder Dr Hedgewar (fondly called ‘Doctorji’ by RSS karyakartas) was invited for a discussion by residents of ‘Hindu Colony’ in Dadar (an area in Mumbai). The residents were pondering over the idea of dropping the word ‘colony’ from the name and adopting another word since they considered it to be too Western for their nationalist sentiments.
Since many of them had heard about Dr Hedgewar and respected him for his work in Nagpur, they thought that his input in the discussion would help them reach a conclusion to the controversy. On Doctorji’s arrival, the residents welcomed him and began to discuss their concern.
After patiently listening to the residents, Doctorji suggested that the word ‘Hindu’ should be dropped from the name. Aghast, the residents asked him why he suggests that despite being a staunch Hindu.
Doctorji responded by saying, “I am not opposed to the word ‘Hindu’ as such. I am only opposed to its use in the present context, which denotes that in our own country the Hindus have formed a colony! How can there be a colony of Hindus in Hindustan?”. (Reference: MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, pg 116)
Dr. Hedgewar was an ardent believer of ‘Hindustan for Hindus’, and believed that the existence of a “Hindu colony” in Hindustan was unnecessary. According to Dr. Hedgewar, using the name ‘Hindu colony’ was diluting the fact that Hindustan belonged to Hindus, since it gave the perception that Hindus are just one of the multiple communities of India, and not the natural nationals of the country.
Doctorji continued, “If some Englishmen come, stay in a particular locality in Hindustan and call it a ‘British Colony’, it can be understood. So also it is, if you go to England, live in a particular locality and call it a ‘Hindu Colony’. But a ‘British Colony’ in England an ‘American Colony’ in the United States and a ‘Hindu Colony’ in our land Hindusthan are all absurd..” (Reference: MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, pg 116)
By the above quote, Doctorji very openly proclaimed that India is a country for Hindus, and that Hindus are the natural nationals of India. All other communities such as Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews either came as invaders or took refuge in the country due to persecution being faced in their homeland.
Moreover, this also explained why Doctorji chose the name ‘Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’ for the organisation. According to Dr Hedgewar, the word ‘Rashtriya’ naturally meant ‘Hindu’. Using the word ‘Hindu’ instead of the word ‘Rashtriya’ would dilute the importance of Hindus to merely a community living in India and hide the reality that the land belongs to them.
Sangh believes that the word ‘Hindu’ is a cultural identity and not faith. Anyone who considers himself to be a son/daughter of the motherland and adopts the local culture automatically becomes a ‘Hindu’.
M.S Golwalkar (also known as ‘Guruji’ by Swayamsevaks) in his book ‘A Bunch of Thoughts’ explains the ideology of Hindutva and the Sangh. He explains that Muslims and Christians identifying themselves as ‘minorities’ is a major concern for the Sangh since they are alienating themselves from India’s nationalist movement.
According to Golwalkar, the term ‘religious minorities’ harden the shells of religion and separate them from nation-building. He says that Muslims and Christians should shake off their foreign complexes and adopt the local culture. (Reference: Bunch of Thoughts, pg 133)
Elaborating his point of view, he takes the example of Persia (where the Persian is still used instead of Arabic, despite being an Islamic country) and Indonesia (where Ramayana is still enacted in plays and the Hindu culture is still followed). Golwalkar says that adopting the local culture of a place won’t obstruct the faith of Muslims and Christians, but will bring them to mainstream nationalism where they no longer feel alienated. (Reference: Bunch of Thoughts, pg 134)
Golwalkar also says that Muslims and Christians will not be harmed in a Hindu Rashtra, and gives the example of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha empire. He reiterates that Islam and Christianity weren’t suppressed during the time of Marathas and that Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj even arranged for an Islamic funeral of Afzal Khan in Pratapgarh despite his treachery and betrayal. (Reference: Bunch of Thoughts, pg 135)
Hindu Rashtra, though a controversial topic due to misinformation propagated by Marxists, is a very practical concept for India. Hinduism isn’t just a religion but the very identity and culture of India that is renowned world over.
Even when the Muslim invaders from Central Asia invaded our country, they referred to the residents of our land as ‘Hindus’, thus making it clear that the term ‘Hindu’ and ‘Indian’ are synonyms to each other and can be used interchangeably.
By judgment dated 14.08.2020 pronounced by a Bench of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan, an Advocate practising before the Supreme Court and having a standing over 30 years, was found guilty of having committed criminal contempt of court and the case is adjourned to hear regarding the sentence.
This judgment has evoked strong protest by a group of advocates and also a section of the press. Some articles and write-ups published found fault with the judgment on the ground that the same infringes Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Certain procedural irregularities, such as want of consent of the Attorney General, are also pointed out to contend that the decision is vitiated. It appears that an attempt is being made to create and influence public opinion in favour of the Prashant Bhushan, not only in the country but also abroad.
It is shocking to find that the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales has thought it fit to plead for contemnor (Prashant Bhushan) and has demanded the repeal of the statutory provision regarding criminal contempt. This is a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of the country and in particular the sovereign power of the Indian Parliament which is competent enough to take decisions without any external influence.
A group of advocates are trying to enlist support from lawyers and carrying on a signature campaign as if the matter is to be decided on the basis of the opinion of the majority and not on the merits of the matter. These developments are both disturbing and unfortunate.
The basis for action for contempt are two tweets admittedly posted by the contemnor. The first one reads as follows:
“CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Rajbhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice”
“When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal emergency they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction and more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs”
A preliminary objection is raised with regard to procedure. It seems a private party had filed the contempt petition alleging contempt with regard to the first tweet without the consent of the Attorney General. It appears on the administrative side an order was passed to list the matter before the court. Accordingly, it was listed.
The Bench on a consideration of the matter decided to take suo moto action for contempt and directed issue of notice not only in respect of the first tweet but also in respect of the second one which appears to have been published in the English daily that day.
The Supreme Court has rightly rejected the preliminary objection relying on several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. There is no dispute that the Supreme Court has the power to take action suo moto and that, in such an event, consent of the Attorney General is not required. It is only when a private party intends to move the court, such consent is required.
In the present case, no doubt, a private party has moved the court regarding the first tweet without the consent of the Attorney General. The court is entitled to take suo-moto cognizance when the information regarding contempt comes to its notice from any source. It could be even a petition filed before it. Therefore, there is no illegality in the court taking suo-moto action on the basis of information found in the petition filed before it. It is impossible to contend that cognizance taken is without jurisdiction.
The assertion in an article that “once a petition is filed, it is only for the Attorney General to decide whether it amounts to criminal contempt or not” is clearly an erroneous statement of law. The power to decide whether it amounts to criminal contempt or not is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There is no law which has transferred this power to the Attorney General.
The consent of the Attorney General is provided only to lend assurance that there is a prima facie case. The decision of the Attorney General is also not final and the same is subject to judicial review. Even where permission is refused by the Attorney General, it is open to the party to approach the court with relevant information and the court is entitled to take suo-moto action.
In the present case, even at the earliest stage, the court has made it clear that it has taken suo-moto cognizance and issued notice accordingly. The judgment of the Supreme Court has effectively answered this preliminary objection and rightly rejected the contention which is of a highly technical nature without any merit.
Even on merits, the judgment appears to be totally sound with cogent reasons for its conclusions. To decide whether the remarks amount to criminal contempt or not, one has to see the effect of such imputation in the mind of the public. In the first tweet, the allegation that CJI was riding the motorcycle is admittedly not true and hence the question of wearing a helmet does not arise. Reference to the owner of the motorbike as a BJP leader and reference to the premises of Rajbhavan is also not without significance. Evidently, the contemnor intends to inject politics into the episode.
More than all this, as pointed out in the judgment, the averment that the “CJI has kept the Supreme Court in a lockdown mode, denying citizens of their Fundamental Right to access justice” is patently false. The court has been functioning even during lockdown through video conference and the contemnor himself has approached the court both as a litigant and a lawyer and has obtained relief.
The tweet read as a whole is calculated to create an impression that the Chief Justice of India has closed down the Supreme Court disowning his responsibility and is enjoying the ride in a costly motorcycle. Undoubtedly this remark (which is partly false), is scandalous and calculated to undermine the dignity and authority of the court.
So far as the second tweet is concerned, not much argument is required to show that it amounts to gross criminal contempt by Prashant Bhushan. The clear meaning of the imputation is that the Supreme Court in general and the four Chief Justices of India in particular, have been responsible for destroying democracy in this country during the last 6 years.
This is a clear case of the condemnation of the Supreme Court and four Chief Justices, as responsible for the destruction of democracy. What will be the impression created in the mind of the public? – That an institution which has to protect democracy has destroyed it. Undoubtedly it lowers the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and four Chief Justices, in the estimation of the public in general. It is impossible to comprehend, that these assertions have been made bonafide in the public interest.
The circumstances clearly indicate that remarks have been made in the two tweets with malicious intention to malign the Supreme Court and its Judges. They are portrayed as people who have destroyed democracy in the country. These remarks are scandalous, tending to bring the court into disrespect and disrepute. Such remarks shake the confidence of the people in the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Therefore the finding that the contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt is unexceptionable.
Under the circumstances, raising a hue and cry and claiming that the judgment holding Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt has dealt a deathblow to the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression is totally unjustified. The demand for the repeal of the law relating to criminal contempt is certainly not advisable. It is also dangerous, in as much as, in such an event, vested interests will be free to scandalize the judges and lower the dignity and authority of the courts with impunity.
