Latest news with #RVenkataramani
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
3 Judges, 3 Cases, 2 Days: Supreme Court's 'Balance' Message On Free Speech
New Delhi: Three cases, three benches, two days -- the Supreme Court is sending a clear message: freedom of expression is not absolute; it must respect an individual's right to dignity and those misusing this freedom must face action. The top court's strong observations are significant in an era where social media has democratised public opinion, but made us vulnerable to virtual attacks and brutal trolling by strangers, often anonymous. Case 1: Article 19 vs Article 21 Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today heard a case related to stand-up comics and podcasters, including Samay Raina, who are in trouble for controversial remarks in their shows. The influencers have been asked to respond to a petition that flagged their objectionable remarks on persons with disabilities. Sources said the court has taken serious note of these remarks. The top court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression and rights of others. When Attorney General R Venkataramani said the proposed guidelines need to be discussed, Justice Kant said an open debate is needed. "There are many free advisors in the market. Ignoring them... the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where the rights and duties start. We will have an open debate on such guidelines. let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints," he observed. "Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump over Article 19," the court said. While Article 19 relates to freedom of expression, Article 21 pertains to the right to life. This is especially significant at a time when trolling and online attacks create mental stress and anxiety, and can also incite violence. The court noted that it needs to protect citizens' rights and ensure that nobody's dignity is violated. Case 2: 'Freedom Being Abused' A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a cartoonist's petition for relief after an FIR was registered against him for allegedly sharing objectionable content on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers. "Log kisi ko bhi, kuch bhi keh dete hain (People say anything to anyone). We will have to do something about it)," the bench said. While granting relief to the cartoonist Hemant Malviya, the bench noted that if he continued to share offensive social media posts, the Madhya Pradesh government would be free to take action. Malviya was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus and disturbing communal harmony. When his counsel, Vrinda Grover, said that the cartoon could be said to be in "poor taste". "But is it an offence?" she asked. Justice Dhulia replied, "Whatever we may do with this case, but this is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused." Case 3: 'Who Wants State To Step In' On Monday, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Wajahat Khan, who filed a complaint against influencer Sharmistha Panoli in a hate speech case. Khan has now been arrested for his social media posts. He has said complaints have been registered against him in several states. He said these cases were in retaliation for his complaint against Panoli. Justice Nagarathna remarked that citizens must understand the value of freedom of expression. "...why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't, then the State will step in and who wants the State to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in (sic)," she said. The bench remarked that reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech are needed and it cannot be a "100% absolute right". "Citizens are misusing this freedom. They just press a button and everything is posted online. Why are courts flooded with such cases? Why shouldn't there be guidelines for citizens?" he said. Focus On Free Speech Limits In Social Media Era Strong remarks by the top court judges in cases relating to freedom of speech suggest that the court may have decided, as a whole, to take a strong stand on objectionable social media remarks that often cite freedom of expression to seek legal relief. Earlier, in May, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai took note of objectionable social media posts targeting Justice Surya Kant. The Chief Justice had said the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right comes with reasonable restrictions. NDTV spoke to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on this subject. "Internet as a medium of communication is totally different and distinct from conventional media through which freedom of speech has been exercised so far. The anonymity involved and the rapid global reach and the potential to cause severe personal and societal damage through misuse of social media require a totally different judicial treatment." The Centre's top lawyer said traditional jurisprudence developed for print and electronic media in earlier decades cannot be used to address the challenges posed by social media. "Social Media platforms monetise the addictive nature of the human race and arrogantly refuse to even recognise reasonable restrictions, much less follow even statutory regulations. This results in dangerous consequences. I am sure our judiciary will suitably respond by giving meaningful interpretation to the reasonability of restrictions, as is being done in other countries. Every nation is grappling with this menace. I am sure India will lead in giving a solution to the world through a landmark judgment," Mr Mehta said.
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Can 'Blood Money' Save Kerala Nurse Nimisha Priya? Has It Saved Indians Before?
New Delhi: Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya - sentenced to death by Yemen for killing a man harassing her - will likely be executed Wednesday unless her lawyers can persuade his family to accept ' blood money ' of $1 million (i.e., Rs 8.6 crore) as financial compensation for his unintended death. On Monday the Indian government told the Supreme Court 'blood money' is likely Nimisha Priya's last hope of escaping the death sentence. Attorney General R Venkataramani said the government could not do much more - at this time - to ensure the Kerala nurse's release from Yemen. "It is unfortunate... there is a point till which we can go. We have reached it," he said. 'Blood Money' In The Koran It is money paid to the family of the person killed in exchange for a pardon. In Sharia law - followed by Yemen and (to varying degrees) other Islamic countries, including Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan - the murdered person's legal heirs have the right to demand and/or accept this compensation. Under Sharia law if 'blood money' is offered and accepted, then the offender - Nimisha Priya, in this case - can't be executed. In most cases s/he, or they, are also pardoned by the government. 'Blood money' is not a new concept. It was widely practiced as far back as the sixth and seventh centuries CE, primarily by warring tribes to end cycles of violence and bloodshed. Back then payments would have ranged from gold and silver to trade goods like camels and furs. The concept was later formalised in the Koran. In chapter 4, verse 92, it says "... whoever kills a believer by mistake must free a believing slave and pay blood money (diyah, set at 100 camels by the Prophet Mohammed) to the deceased's family". It also says "... if one cannot afford that, let them fast two consecutive months..." An offer to fast for two months, though, will not save Ms Priya in this case. 'Blood Money' Cases Over the years the 'blood money' concept has been exercised in quite a few instances, both by Indians looking to escape death sentences, including a 2017 case in which a Saudi businessman-philanthropist paid around Rs 1.8 crore to free a Telangana man on death row. There have been cases in the United Arab Emirates too and others in which compensation was offered but refused, or delayed, leading to prolonged incarceration or even death. There have also been cases where Indians received compensation from local residents, such as in April 2023, when 20-year-old Mohd Mirza was badly hurt - he suffered 50 per cent damage to his brain - in a bus accident that killed 17 people, and was paid Rs 11 crore in exchange This, however, is the first time 'blood money' is being offered in a case in Yemen. 'Blood Money' Cases Involving Indians In 2017 a Kerala man, AS Sankaranarayanan, was freed after spending eight years in a UAE prison for the accidental death of an electrician (a Bangladeshi worker) at his home. Sankaranarayanan had been directed to pay 200,000 dirhams (now worth Rs 47 lakh) but did not have that much money. It was not till a newspaper report about his plight that he began to receive help. Amazingly, the Emirates Islamic Bank then paid the full amount. That same year a Telangana man, Limbadri, returned home after spending nearly a decade on death row for the accidental murder of a Saudi national. His cause was championed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, who eventually got a local businessman to pay the diyah. In 2014 three Indians on death row in Saudi Arabia for six years - for the murder of their compatriot - were released after a businessman paid around Rs 1.12 crore to the fourth man's family. There was also a remarkable case from 2013, when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia paid 'blood money' - approximately Rs 1.5 crore - for Saleem Basha, an Indian truck driver from Bengaluru, who had been convicted of killing nine people in a road accident in 2006. A far more recent case involves Abdul Rahim, also from Kerala, who was accused of accidentally killing the minor son of his employer in Riyadh. This was in 2006 when Rahim was 26 years old. He escaped the death sentence after the boy's family accepted diyah of Rs 34 crore - the amount was secured via a massive fundraising effort by the Malayali community. He was, however, handed a 20-year jail term that included time already served, meaning the sentence ends in December 2026.
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Indian Nurse On Death Row: Nothing much govt can do, Centre tells SC
New Delhi: The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that the government could do 'nothing much' in the case of an Indian nurse facing execution on July 16 for murder in Yemen. Attorney General R Venkataramani informed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the government was doing 'utmost possible'. 'Having regard to the sensitivity and status of Yemen as a place, there is nothing much the Government of India can do,' he said. He continued, 'There is a point up to which the Government of India can go and we have reached that point.' Venkataramani said the government recently wrote to the public prosecutor of the area concerned to find out if the execution could be suspended for the time being. 'The Government of India is trying its best,' Venkataramani said, 'and has also engaged with some sheikhs who are very influential people there.' He said the government was keen to save one of its citizens. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to save Indian nurse Nimisha Priya, 38, facing execution in Yemen. Priya, a nurse from Palakkad district of Kerala, was convicted of murdering her Yemeni business partner in 2017. She was sentenced to death in 2020, and her final appeal was rejected in 2023.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
The Houthi factor: Why government said it can't do much to save Indian nurse Nimisha Priya's execution in Yemen; what we know
NEW DELHI: "There's a point till which Government of India can go. We have reached that point," attorney general of India R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court on Monday, during the hearing of a plea seeking to stall the execution of Keralite nurse Nimisha Priya in Yemen. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The execution is tentatively scheduled for July 16. The top law officer said the government was keen to save its citizens and was doing the "utmost possible" in the matter. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehtawas was hearing a petition filed by an organisation seeking directions to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to intervene in the case of 38-year-old Nimisha Priya, who is on death row in Yemen for the murder of her Yemeni business partner. Why the government said it can't save Nimisha Priya - the Houthi angle Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the bench that the government had made efforts through informal and indirect channels. He said a letter was sent to the public prosecutor in the region to explore the possibility of suspending the execution. "The Government of India is trying its best," he said, adding that some influential sheikhs in the area were also approached. However, Venkataramani also outlined the limits of diplomatic outreach, citing the complex situation in Yemen. "Having regard to the sensitivity and status of Yemen as a place, there is nothing much the Government of India can do," he said. Referring to the Houthis who control the region, he added that they are "not even diplomatically recognised." It was stated that India has no embassy in Yemen, and had Nimisha Priya been lodged in universally recognized-Aden, instead of Houthi-controlled Sanaa, the situation could have been different, Live Law reported. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He told the court that the situation was not comparable to other parts of the world where formal inter-governmental negotiations are possible. "It is very complex," he said, "and we don't want to complicate the situation by going too much public." The government, he added, had received an informal communication suggesting that the execution "is kept under abeyance," but said, "We don't know how far to believe that. " On the possibility of blood money, he said, "Blood money is a private negotiation," and stressed that the government could not be asked to act beyond its defined limits. "It is not a matter where the government can be asked to do something beyond the defined limit. It is not possible," Venkataramani said. What the bench said The bench noted that the petitioners were not seeking funds from the government but only assistance in establishing contact with the deceased's family to negotiate the payment of blood money, which is permissible under Yemeni law. "They (petitioner) are saying they may be able to arrange for the blood money. The only question is the negotiating link," the bench observed. It remarked that the case was concerning. "The real cause of concern is the manner in which the incident took place and in spite thereof, if she loses her life, that is really sad." The court posted the matter for further hearing on July 18 and asked all parties to inform it of any developments. What the petitioners said The counsel representing 'Save Nimisha Priya – International Action Council' told the court that Priya's mother was in Yemen along with a social worker to initiate talks with the family of the deceased. "The only thing that is possible today to avoid death sentence is the family of the deceased agreeing to accept blood money," he said. He pointed out that the final legal appeal had already been rejected by the Supreme Judicial Council of Yemen, and the death sentence had been confirmed under the country's Sharia law. The counsel said diplomatic channels needed to be explored urgently given the tentative execution date. He also emphasised that the petitioners were not asking for funds from the government and would arrange the required compensation themselves. Why was Priya sentenced? Nimisha Priya, a nurse from Kerala's Palakkad district, was convicted in 2020 for the murder of her Yemeni business partner Talal Abdo Mahdi. Yemeni court documents state that in July 2017, Priya allegedly drugged Mahdi and, with the help of another nurse, killed him. His body was then dismembered and disposed of in an underground water tank. Priya had partnered with Mahdi in 2015 to open a clinic in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, since local laws require a Yemeni national to register any such business, the plea said. The same year, Mahdi had accompanied Priya on a visit to Kerala. Her petitioners have argued that Priya did not receive a fair trial due to the ongoing civil war in Yemen at the time. They described her as a "victim of war" and said she lacked adequate legal defence during her trial. Priya remains imprisoned in Sana'a.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Govt doing whatever possible: Centre to SC on execution of Indian nurse Nimisha Priya in Yemen
The Government of India is doing whatever is 'utmost possible' in the matter pertaining to an Indian nurse Nimisha Priya, who is facing execution for murder in Yemen on July 16, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Monday. Attorney General R Venkataramani told a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that having regard to the sensitivity and status of Yemen as a place, there is nothing much the Government of India can do. 'There is a point up to which the Government of India can go and we have reached that point,' the top law officer said.
