“An Insignificant Man” Now available on YouTube

At the heart of An Insignificant Man is the most polarising man in India today – Arvind Kejriwal. The film follows Kejriwal and his Common Man’s Party – an insurgent new political party, as they wield basic public issues like water, electricity, and graft against the country’s oldest and most powerful two political establishments. It gives an insider’s view into Kejriwal’s brand of politics, which has split popular opinion into two prominent factions. One labels it selfish and anarchic, while the other insists on seeing it as a major shift in the Indian political paradigm.
The 100-minute film has been distilled from 400 hours of behind-the-scenes footage shot over a course of two years with a fly-on-the-wall approach. We gain a premium, all-access pass to the backstage of a new brand of politics, finding strength all over the world, transporting us smack dab in the middle of party offices, daily meetings, heated arguments, inside jokes, campaign strategies and the true events and ideologies that inform rhetoric in public space.
With never-before-seen footage, the film offers a unique insight into the fledgling political party’s battle between survival and extinction in the largest democracy in the world. It follows activists, politicians, and academics on their best days and their worst, as they navigate the absurdities, trials, and chaos of Indian politics; and as they reveal their agendas, intentions and ambitions. Capturing moments of triumph and despair, the film is a moving cinematic journey through the narrow lanes of Delhi’s slums to the closed corridors of political power.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW

Advertisements

Rally For River “Support Indian Heritage”.

Rally For Rivers is breakthrough campaign launched by Isha Foundation to save the Life lines of this country.

Why This is started?

India has essentially grown along the banks of major rivers. Our ancient civilizations were born along the waters, and they perished when the rivers shifted course.

For many millennia, we maintained the sanctity of this relationship. But in the last few decades, due to the pressures of population and development, our perennial rivers are becoming seasonal.

Many of the smaller rivers have already vanished. The Ganga and Indus are two of the world’s most endangered rivers, according to WWF.

The Narmada, Krishna and Kaveri do not reach the sea four months of the year. Water levels in almost every major river have declined severely.

If we do not act now to reverse the serious decline of these lifelines, the next generation will pay a very heavy price.

Isha Foundation is proposing a comprehensive river rejuvenation plan to reverse this decline and revive our rivers.

How can we save our Rivers?

With over a decade of experience in matters related to the environment and sustainability, Isha Foundation offers a core solution to stabilize and revitalize our rivers.

It involves creating and maintaining tree cover for a minimum of one kilometer on either side of the entire river length and half a kilometer for tributaries. The benefits of tree planting have been indisputably demonstrated by Project GreenHands.

Native forest trees would be planted in government-owned land along riverbanks. Organic fruit tree cultivation would be taken up on private farmers’ lands.

This solution ensures that rivers are restored while also enhancing farmers’ livelihood by more than doubling their income in five years. The availability of fruit also improves nutritional intake among people.

Trees help keep rivers perennial, mitigate floods and drought, increase precipitation, mitigate climate change and prevent soil erosion.

How can I contribute now?

To Submit a policy recommendation for central government, peoples support is very vital. For a large environmental movement throughout the country like this, minimum of 10 crore votes are needed. You can pledge your support by giving a missed call to the below number.

When is this Rally is happening?

To create awareness and momentum amongst all sections of society and the government, Isha Foundation is organizing a “Rally for Rivers” awareness campaign in consultation and collaboration with the Ministry of Environment.

Conceived by Sadhguru, the rally will be flagged off from Isha Yoga Center, Coimbatore on September 3and culminate in Delhi on October 2, covering 13 states and 21 major cities. Sadhguru will be driving this entire stretch of 6560 km across India.

Below is the video of Dhruv Rathee explained about this rally.

Offensive posts against SC/ST on social media a punishable offence: Delhi HC

The judgement was given when a Bench of judges at Delhi High Court were listening to one of the incidents that took place where a woman who belongs to a Scheduled Caste complaint of social media harassment against her sister-in-law.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’Open Sans’, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 0 10px;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);orphans:2;widows:2;text-align:justify;”>New Delhi, July 4: An offensive post on social media against Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or any other backward communities will land you in jail, says Delhi High Court in one of its judgement passed on Monday. A report appeared in Times of India also said that even if an offensive comment is made in a closed group, the Delhi High Court in its ruling said that it will be punishable.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’Open Sans’, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 0 10px;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);orphans:2;widows:2;text-align:justify;”>The judgement was given when a Bench of judges at Delhi High Court were listening to one of the incidents that took place where a woman who belongs to a Scheduled Caste complaint of social media harassment against her sister-in-law, who also happens to be a Rajput. The complainant in her plea had mentioned that her sister-in-law was harassing and abusing her on social media, including Facebook and WhatsApp.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’Open Sans’, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 0 10px;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);orphans:2;widows:2;text-align:justify;”>According to the report, the Bench held that the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, will apply if a casteist slur is made against a person from these communities. The judgement, which came in reference to a Facebook post, can extend to other social media platforms such as WhatsApp, even if they have closed privacy settings. 

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’Open Sans’, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 0 10px;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);orphans:2;widows:2;text-align:justify;”>Full article at : India.com

10 Most Interesting Indian Court Cases 

We are a land rich in source material, especially if you were to get into the real stories this country has to offer. Yes, it’s a cliché but I


ndia is a great example of how often fact is stranger than fiction. The Indian Judicial System is a treasure trove of such stories. Here are some of the most important and influential cases in Indian history. Read on.

1. K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (1959)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This case was the last time there was a jury trial in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja. A jury trial was held to decide whether it was a crime of passion (carrying a ten year sentence) or pre-meditated murder (life imprisonment) to which Nanavati plead ‘not guilty’. The jury ruled in favour of him but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial.

State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is a bizarre one. Ram Bahadur Thapa was  the servant of one J.B. Chatterjee of Chatterjee Bros. firm in Calcutta. They had come to Rasogovindpur, a village in Balasore district in Orissa to purchase aeroscrap from an abandoned aerodrome outside the village. Because it was abandoned, the locals believed it was haunted. This piqued the curiosity of Chatterjee who wanted to “see the ghosts”. At night, as they were making their way to the aerodrome they saw a flickering light within the premises which, due to the strong wind, seemed to move. They thought it was will-o’-the-wisp Thapa jumped into action as he unleashed his khukri to attack the “ghosts”. Turns out, they were local adivasi women with a hurricane lantern who had gathered under amohua tree to collect some flowers. Thapa’s indiscriminate hacking caused the death of one Gelhi Majhiani and injured two other women. The Sessions court judge however, acquitted Thapa declaring that his actions were the result of a stern belief in ghosts and that in the moment, Thapa believed that they were lawfully justified.

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>

Mathura Rape Case (1972)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is one of the most important cases in the country, because the protests that followed the verdict, forced some important changes in rape laws in India. Mathura, a young tribal woman, was raped by two constables within the premises of the Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra. The Sessions court judge found the accused not guilty. The reasoning behind this was (believe it or not) that Mathura was habituated to sexual intercourse. This, according to the judge, clearly implied that the sexual act in the police station was consensual. The amendments to the law that were forced by the protests got one thing right – submission does not mean consent.

Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>If there’s one reason India can still call itself ‘the world’s largest democracy’, it is this case. Swami Kesavananda Bharti ran a Hindu Mutt in Edneer village in Kerala but the state wanted to appropriate the land. Bharti, who was consulted by noted jurist Nanabhoy Palhkivala, filed a petition claiming that a religious institution had the right to run its business without government interference. The State invoked Article 31 which states ” no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. ” A bench of 13 judges deliberated on the facts of the case and through a narrow 7-6 majority, formulated the Basic Structure Doctrine, which puts some restrictions to how much the Parliament can amend the Constitutional laws. In many ways, the judgement here is considered to be a big middle finger to the then Central government under Indira Gandhi. Soon after, the emergency followed.

NALSA vs Union of India (2014)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India which declared that Transgendered People were the ‘third gender’ and that they had equal rights as any other gender. The petitioner in this case was the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

Bhawal Case (1921-1946)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>It’s still regarded as one of India’s weirdest identity cases. It mainly revolved around a possible impostor who claimed to be the prince of Bhawal Estate, one which comprised over 2000 villages and was one of undivided Bengal’s largest zamindari estates. Ramendra, the second kumar of the Bhawal estate died in the early 20th century, but there were rumours about him not really being dead. Ten years later,  in 1921, a sanyaasi who looked a lot like Ramendra was found wandering the streets of Dhaka. For some reason, the former tenants and farmers of Ramendra vouched for this man and also supported his claim to the title. Almost everyone except Ramendra’s widow, Bibhabati, believed him. There was a long legal process involving two trials where both sides attempted to prove their claims. In the meantime, the new Ramendra also moved to Calcutta and where he was welcomed in the elite circles. He used to regularly collect 1/3rd of the estate revenue, which was his share. He used that money to support his lifestyle while also paying the legal fees of the case. In the end, in 1946, the court finally ruled in his favour, but soon after that he passed away due to a stroke he had suffered a couple of days earlier.

Tarakeswar Case (1874)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This case was so (for lack of a better word) ‘popular’, that authorities had to sell tickets to let people come inside the sessions court. And the story itself is nothing short of a blockbuster. Nobin Chandra slit the throat of his 16-year old wife, Elokeshi, who was apparently having an affair with the mahant of the local Tarakeswar temple. Even though Nobin Chandra handed himself over to the police and confessed his crime, the locals were mostly on his side. The police had to let him go after two years, even though he was serving a life imprisonment while the mahantwas arrested and put behind bars for three years. Alternatively, there were also rumours that the mahant had raped Elokeshi on the pretext of helping her out with “fertility issues”.  This case was really important for that time period because this was seen by the society as one of those moments where the British rulers meddled in the affairs of the Bengali bhadralok and a temple priest, something that was very rare back in those days. 

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>Source: scoopwhoop.com

SC Moved Against DU Photocopy Case Judgment


A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India against the Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in the DU photocopy case, reports Spicy IP. As per the report, the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) has filed the petition challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on December 9, 2016.
It was in September, 2016 Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw ruled that section 52(1) (i) of the Copyright Act is broad enough to cover the acts of photocopying and the creation of course packs by University for its students. 

Read more at: law live

Supreme Court collegium ends 1-year impasse by finalising judicial appointment procedure

NEW DELHI: Overcoming serious differences within itself, as well as with the Centre, the Supreme Court collegium has finalised the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to constitutional courts.



The issue had been a bone of contention between the executive and the judiciary for more than a year.The collegium, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur agreed to the contentious national security clause that the Centre had insisted upon as one of the grounds for determining the eligibility of judges for appointment to the apex court and high courtsTOI had reported in its edition on February 27 about the possibility of an understandingon the Centre’s stance that “national security” ought to be part of the criteria to determine eligibility for appointment as judges.

In another breakthrough, the apex court collegium dropped its reservation about setting up secretariats in the SC and each high court to maintain databases on judges and assist the collegiums in the SC and the high courts in selection of judgesSources said it was unanimously decided to set up secretariats in the apex court and each high court.

Vacancies in HCs to be filled soon

The dispute between the collegium and the government had held up appointments to higher judiciary despite rising vacancies.

Finalisation of the MoP, which will be sent to the Centre for approval and adoption this week, raises hopes of speedy filling up of vacancies in HCs, which are operating at below 60% of their sanctioned strength.

In many HCs, court rooms have been shut because of lack of adequate number of judges. This is hampering disposal of cases, which adds to the backlog.

“There were no other sore points except the national security clause and secretariat in the MoP that required resolution.

The members of the SC collegium held seven meetings and unanimously finalised the MoP after debating each clause and sentence of the new MoP while keeping in view the provisions of the old MoP and the constitution bench judgment of October 2015,” a source said.

The source said the collegium agreed with the Centre on the national security clause on the condition that specific reasons for application of the clause were recorded. Other sources confirmed that the issue, one of the sticking points, was resolved “in the best possible way”.

A constitution bench headed by Justice Khehar in October 2015 had struck down the NJAC and in December 2015 had directed the Centre to frame a new MoP in consultation with the CJI, who was to act in accordance with the unanimous view of the members of the collegium.

For the last one year, the draft MoP was getting tossed back and forth between the Centre and the collegium with both sides refusing to budge over their stated positions on the national security clause which ostensibly gave veto power to the government to reject a name recommended by the collegium for appointment as judge.

However, things started moving after Justice Khehar took over as CJI and the composition of the collegium changed, allowing it to meet the challenges head on.

Supreme Court collegium ends 1-year impasse by finalising judicial appointment procedure

NEW DELHI: Overcoming serious differences within itself, as well as with the Centre, the Supreme Court collegium has finalised the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to constitutional courts.



The issue had been a bone of contention between the executive and the judiciary for more than a year.The collegium, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur agreed to the contentious national security clause that the Centre had insisted upon as one of the grounds for determining the eligibility of judges for appointment to the apex court and high courtsTOI had reported in its edition on February 27 about the possibility of an understandingon the Centre’s stance that “national security” ought to be part of the criteria to determine eligibility for appointment as judges.

In another breakthrough, the apex court collegium dropped its reservation about setting up secretariats in the SC and each high court to maintain databases on judges and assist the collegiums in the SC and the high courts in selection of judgesSources said it was unanimously decided to set up secretariats in the apex court and each high court.

Vacancies in HCs to be filled soon

The dispute between the collegium and the government had held up appointments to higher judiciary despite rising vacancies.

Finalisation of the MoP, which will be sent to the Centre for approval and adoption this week, raises hopes of speedy filling up of vacancies in HCs, which are operating at below 60% of their sanctioned strength.

In many HCs, court rooms have been shut because of lack of adequate number of judges. This is hampering disposal of cases, which adds to the backlog.

“There were no other sore points except the national security clause and secretariat in the MoP that required resolution.

The members of the SC collegium held seven meetings and unanimously finalised the MoP after debating each clause and sentence of the new MoP while keeping in view the provisions of the old MoP and the constitution bench judgment of October 2015,” a source said.

The source said the collegium agreed with the Centre on the national security clause on the condition that specific reasons for application of the clause were recorded. Other sources confirmed that the issue, one of the sticking points, was resolved “in the best possible way”.

A constitution bench headed by Justice Khehar in October 2015 had struck down the NJAC and in December 2015 had directed the Centre to frame a new MoP in consultation with the CJI, who was to act in accordance with the unanimous view of the members of the collegium.

For the last one year, the draft MoP was getting tossed back and forth between the Centre and the collegium with both sides refusing to budge over their stated positions on the national security clause which ostensibly gave veto power to the government to reject a name recommended by the collegium for appointment as judge.

However, things started moving after Justice Khehar took over as CJI and the composition of the collegium changed, allowing it to meet the challenges head on.