We have seen the social media has not only been used as propaganda tool but has been weaponised to create a wave of opinion and manipulate the public perception. Russia was first accused of data mining ,hacking and using details to influence the US election.Social media has penetrated so deep into the lives of people in all over ,especially in India, where it can cause immeasurable damage to the unity and brotherhood among people if there are no checks and balances on its functioning.The startling disclosures of TheWall street Journal that FB took no action after BJP MLA Goshamahal, Hyderabad,posted accusing Muslims of intentionally spreading Corona virus, and plotting against the nation and waging a “love jihad” campaign by seeking to marry Hindu women. The report quoted that Ms Ankhi Das FB publicity Director in India,was against taking these posts down ,and informed colleagues that “punishing violations by politicians of PM Modi’s party will damage the company ‘s business prospects in India” , borders on its collusion with BJP.FB was inclined to the view that it was better to ERR on the side of commercial success and refrained from taking a firm stand.,WSJ story stated that “Ankhi Das provided BJP with favourable treatment on election-related issues” What is shocking is a fact about FB interference Atleast in General Elections in 2019.There are two interesting developments linked to it.One-visit of our Hon’ble PM Modi ji to FB HQs in US in 2015,.The other is , appointment of  Ankhi  Das as Head Of FB India,who belongs to ABVP.

 Infact when Rahul pointed out that BJP &RSS control FB&WatsApp, I didn’t believe,as generally politicians make such wild allegations against the ruling,but If WSJ didn’t reveal the facts ,BJP would have dismissed it and dubbed his party as anti- nationals and traitors.Luckily it was supported by US ‘s famous News Paper WSJ.As such,he speaks truth I believe,unlike other top ruling leaders.Earlier also when Corona virus came,he pointed out in January beginning,but as usual it was taken lightly,now we are facing the music for our inaction, even on economic situation also he cautioned after taking inputs from international experts in Economics ,but no use,Ofcourse it’s debatable issue separately.

   If social media is allowed to serve the political interests of ruling establishments for its commercial gains ,it will not only lead to social tensions but also influence the voting choices of the people paving way for mockery of democracy.

As a responsible media company FB must fulfil all the legal ,regulatory and ethical obligations that are applied to any publisher .There must be a level playing field for all shades of public opinion to be expressed on the platform.No doubt there is strong case for subjecting social media giants to rigorous regulatory scrutiny in view of their growing influence on society.A parliamentary committee on IT headed by Mr Shashi Tharoor has rightly decided to seek explanation from FB about alleged violations in content control.The company’s India chief has been accused of favouring the ruling party and encouraging dubious practices.

 The recent decision of Madhya Pradesh Govt’s decision to reserve all state jobs for the sons of the soil is a retrograde step, which would set a dangerous precedent if implemented. If all states adopt this criterion, certainly it would lead to social disharmony and national disintegration. This rhetoric may work politically particularly during elections, and Mr. Chouhan must be shoring up some goodwill before the by-elections take place. But his priority should have been accommodating the reverse migrants in their home state. It was also reported in the press that the ruling party is facing indifferent prospects in the impending by-polls in the state. These by-polls will elect 24 MLAs, which are crucial for the party to retain power. If one recalls, ahead of last year Assembly Elections CM Fadnavis of Maharashtra, brought in this policy of sons of the soil, in jobs&educational institutions. This policy is gaining ground among states for short-term political gains, but does this pay the dividends is a mute question, and there is no definitive answer to that. Evidence on the ground suggests that it doesn’t necessarily yield positive results. If it did, Mr. Fadnavis would have continued, in place of Uddhav. Many will also question Chouhan, whether it’s legally tenable, as experts say it is violative of Art 15&16 of the constitution. Again the economy can’t run in water-tight compartments with the labour force walled off from each other. We can not be competitive in the world if we pursue such policies.

It’s indeed ironical that the ruling party which has enthusiastically extended domicile rights for land as well as jobs to non-locals and central employees in J&K, so far safeguarded as special rights and privileges under Art 370 &35A, is seen following the exact opposite policy in another state, why these double standards? It will no doubt set a dangerous precedent in these increasingly socially divisive times, that will not serve our economy well either.

In this day and age of internet and easy mobility, geographical boundaries are blurred and meaningless. Flourishing businesses are conducted irrespective of region, identity, country, or even continent. In such a scenario, excluding a jog seeker only because he is not a domicile of the state is patently discriminatory. Of course,  only the judiciary can decide whether it contravenes the law, and even for job seekers, the move denies them equality of opportunity.

 I have touched upon this issue almost 10 days ago. But I'm bringing it to your notice again as I feel it is an important issue concerning citizens, their rights, vis-a-vis freedom of speech, which is one of the important fundamental rights.

The SC bench held Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate Of Public Interest Causes, guilty of the crime of contempt of court for his two tweets.  Mr. Bhushan was convicted in the case, but the court is yet to consider the quantum of punishment. In the meantime over 3000 citizens-including Advocates Along with 12 former judges -have signed a statement extending solidarity to Mr. Bhushan, arguing that his tweets were “a bona fide expression of concern regarding the functioning of the top court” and that the criticism coming from a senior member of Bar,” must be considered by the judiciary as an opportunity to introspect and strengthen the institution”. Justice Lodha, and yesterday’s Joseph Kurian’s statement, that the unseemly hurry in taking up this matter when there are other burning issues pending, seem to point to general apprehension that the bench was likely to convict him. Such an impression doesn’t auger well for a fearless and independent judiciary. It surprises me to know that an advocate who all through his life was present before the super court judges defending constitutional rights of people winning and losing, fighting, and challenging, was considered to have lowered the authority and held guilty. Perhaps the court considers that he has no freedom to pass two comments for which he was held guilty.

A strong and independent and fearless Bar is a precondition for an independent strong judiciary. Here in this case the worrisome part of Bhushan’s judgment is that it prods more questions than answers. To what extent can criticism be freedom of speech and an assault on an institution? Is the criticism of the Supreme Court illegal considering four of its judges held a press conference in January 2018, warning how judiciary was facing threats to its independence and criticising the then CJI? As I understand this judgment is not about curbing Bhushan’s adventurism. It has long term implications and could be interpreted as forbidding anybody from commenting on the judiciary, even if it’s based on logic, evidence, and jurisdiction.

In our constitutional scheme of things, the Supreme Court, no doubt plays a very important role in interpreting the law. But it can not arrogate itself the luxury of thinking it is above criticism. A public delineation of its laws shouldn’t be misconstrued as an attempt at the disruption of the entire judicial system. The courts should act on the criticism if and when it is found to be valid or its shoulders should be broad enough to shrug them. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta once remarked that the right to dissent is the biggest and most important right granted by the constitution. Judges of the top court should be more tolerant of criticism, as Supreme Court is so great that one man's criticism cannot undermine it. But courts also should do introspection.

In my opinion, had the Supreme Court, been magnanimous and condoned Prashant Bhushan its image would have enhanced. The observation compliments and criticism should be taken with equipoise “applies to the judiciary as well. I'm hoping some of my FB lawyer friends and experts on the topic will also chime in their opinion to create awareness on this issue among people. 

 Kamala Harris ‘s selection as the running mate of Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden is a momentous one, in the ensuing US Elections. She is just the 3rd woman to stand for Vice-President of US after Geraldine Ferrero in 1984 and Sarah Palin 2008. As per the reports, it has electrified the hitherto lackluster Democratic campaign for the 2020 Presidential race. Indian-American WhatsApp groups exploded with joy that one of their own might make history as the first woman VP. The press in the US even mentioned her as “president in waiting.”

With the US extremely fractured today, Kamala possibly stands the best chance. That said, everyone expected Hillary to win landslide 2016 but we all saw what happened. It was also reported that Indian -Americans voted overwhelmingly for Hillary over Trump, in 2016, 77% to 16%, according to national Asian-American survey, conducted soon after the election. Now the question is how much does race or racism matter? Particularly at this point? We observe that Trump always trusted in his supremacist roots and won elections. After Floyd’s killing, it was down while Democrats exploited it fully.

The reports also say Ms. Kamala daughter of a Cancer Researcher Shyamala Gopalan an immigrant from Chennai, and Jamaican father Donald Harris a retired Stanford professor, made name for herself as a tough lawyer, politically ambitious enough to throw her hat in the ring as Biden’s challenger in primaries. But Biden chose Ms. Kamala from among cohorts of strong candidates. The anger against Trump's rule over his failure to handle Coronavirus pandemic and continued killing of blacks must be reworking the fabric of social equations to a large extent. However whether Biden-Kamala combo could convert this into votes is to be seen, as the American electorate is by nature quite traditional in voting habits I believe. It is also expected that the moderate voters of the suburbs and the working-class White voters may vote for Trump and it remains to be seen whether swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin which Trump won in 2016, will support Biden this time.

But as per reports, Trump is a bit nervous and in his more candid moments, he has admitted to a grudging respect for Kamala, publicly advising Biden that she would be the best pick, however it was time for Trump to unleash his characteristically colourful invective. In a press conference hours after she was announced, Trump began trying out a few familiar attack lines -similar to those misogynistic ones he used against Hillary —describing Harris several times as “nasty” as well as “mean” “ horrible, disrespectful and a liar, etc. Republicans will now do their best to portray her as a Left-winger. Despite the Indian community urging her to recognise her heritage (Black) she has consistently sought to downplay it.Incidentally, it’s pertinent to mention here that she is also a distant relative India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. So many in the Indian diaspora will celebrate her nomination.

 Will they be able to go beyond the standard Democratic campaign playbook and adroitly craft a fresh approach to take on politically weakened President Trump, who will nevertheless likely come out guns blazing? 

We have to see whether the Democrats pondered the deep lessons of Hillary’s loss to Trump in 2016 and come up with robust ideas to alleviate the economic pain of working-class Americans perceived to be the result of globalisation and immigration? 

 In the fag end of last July 2020, Mr. GS Vasu wrote an article with a heading “My Lords, the threat of contempt is not the Remedy.” This was written in connection with the contempt notice issued by SC to Advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan. The other articles like “the chilling effect of criminal contempt“ And “A mortar cycle and the art of court management“ in another English News Daily etc have been coming. The July 28th Article, the acerbic, bold editorial had emphatically called for revisiting the idea of “scandalising“ in contempt law and ushering in judicial accountability. Those who matter in Judiciary could heed to such advice, which could only enhance the image and reputation of the top court, and our judicial system.

Prashant Bhushan, a very senior Advocate of SC and indefatigable campaigner of public causes, had posted two tweets one of them by and large factual, the other a comment against four past CJs. He could have been wrong in respect of the latter but it was a citizen’s perception of Judiciary. Yet contempt has been preferred suo moto, on the ground that the remark has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and sought the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the proceedings. Its true SC as an institution has to be defended when it acts within constitutional limits. However, an evaluation as to whether it has acted within such limits or preserved constitutional principles is a matter of opinion and does not amount to contempt. Mr. Bhushan must be a great activist and bold defender of people’s rights. Far from undermining the judiciary, he seems to be one who strongly believes in the strengthening of institutions through a healthy criticism. In   InduBhan’s Book about India’s top seven lawyers Bhushan is one. Venugopal ironically said,” we need more lawyers like Prashant.“ If leaders of the Bar and press do not critically evaluate the judiciary, democracy and the rule of law would be in peril. When asked about the judgments being criticised Justice Krishna Iyer said  "there is not enough criticism “ Such statesmanship is missing today. P Shiva Shankar the then Union Law Minister said in 1987 that SC essentially comprises people from the elite and had become a haven for “FERA violators, bride burners, and reactionaries”. But SC merely felt he could have avoided such harsh language. So instead of facing up to the facts, the SC is busy issuing notices to those who are taking pains to point out the decline of institutions tasked with upholding the constitution. The perception now is that Court sometimes doesn’t show a red light to the powers that be when they try to implement a political agenda in contravention to the letter and spirit of the constitution. The court must assert its independence and make it clear that it’s not amenable to be co-opted.

In a democracy, everyone has the right to dissent. The initiation of contempt proceedings by the judiciary against them is an attempt to stop such criticism. Are judges as humans not liable to err? Is corruption in the judiciary is a rarity?