New Delhi: Member of CPI (ML), a human rights activist and a web journalist moved the Supreme Court to challenge the Action of the Tripura Government to slap the legal activity (prevention) acting against lawyers who posted “Tripura burn” and said that SC had to give meaning Limiting “Violating Law Activities” under UPA to curb rampant abuse.
Tripura police previously said that actions had been taken towards various social media handles to mislaim that mosques had been burned in the country when this did not occur.
A bench led by the Chairman of Judge N V Ramana initially asked the Petitioner’s advocate, Prashant Bhushan, why did they not move Tripura High Court but agreed to repair the date to register a petition to hear.
In general, SC does not entertain the petition relating to the incident of the state and usually ask applicants to move HC’s jurisdiction before approaching the APEX court.
Mukesh Mukesh’s first applicant was an advocate registered with the Delhi Bar Council and was associated with the All-India Central Union Council, the Indian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninis) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.
The second applicant was Ansarul Haq Ansari, who said he was a human rights activist from Rajasthan.
And the third applicant is Shyam Meera Singh, a journalist with the NewsClick web portal which often highlights complaints from the marginialized community and minority.
The applicant said their complaints against “political violence targeted at Muslim minorities in Tripura during the second half of October 2021, and the next effort by the state to monopolize the flow of information and facts originating from the affected regions by requesting the provisions of the activity that violates the law (prevention) Acting against civil society members including advocates and journalists who have made efforts to bring facts in connection with targeted violence in the public domain “.
“If the state is permitted to criminalize the actions of discovery and reporting facts, and it is also under the strict provisions of the UPA where anticipatory assurance is prohibited and the idea of guarantee is the possibility that will occur, then the only facts that will come in the public domain are comfortable for The country is due to ‘cold effects’ on freedom of speech and the expression of civil society members.
If the search for truth and reporting itself is criminalized, the victim in the process is the idea of justice, “they said.
The alleged communal violence has erupted in Tripura after Pandal Durga Puja is targeted at Bangladesh.
Two applicants, Mukesh and Ansarul, have visited Tripura as a member of the fact-finding team and has been “put in the public domain, a report entitled ‘Humanity was attacked in Tripura’, ‘Muslim material’, published by lawyers for democracy, on press releases on The Press Club of India “leads to prayer against them by the Tripura Government.
Interestingly, UFA was enacted in 1967 to fight the threat of left-wing extremism to India and its sovereignty.
Activists moved the Supreme Court to challenge UFA against lawyers by Tripura
