6 ms·

> The judges said indiscriminate spying could not be allowed and highlighted the “chilling” effect it could have on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

by sinyug 5y ago

> The judges said indiscriminate spying could not be allowed and highlighted the “chilling” effect it could have on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said. Either way, the Indian constitution has no separate guarantee for "freedom of the press."[1] Theoretically, the press has as much (or as little) freedom as the common man. Practically, the ability to openly blackmail all and sundry means they can say what they want without repercussions. Further, Article 19(2) severely restricts any such right to "freedom of expression" for a variety of reasons, including national security: > Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence In a twist of irony, Jawaharlal Nehru, former prime minister and the great-grandfather of the Rahul Gandhi mentioned in the Guardian article is responsible for this curtailment of rights. He could not run his socialist regime in peace if there was absolute freedom of speech and expression. I am sure there is some law somewhere which allows the Indian government to spy on its citizens. After all, there are hundreds of British-era laws still on the books. The only question is whether such spying is "reasonable." There, I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives. I am not in favor of handing over veto power over executive decisions to judges who are not only unelected, but probably unique in any democratic country to have reserved the power to select their own replacements. Imagine the US Senate twiddling its thumbs while US Supreme Court judges selected not only their own successors, but also every single judge in the federal judiciary. [1] Article 19(1) (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/)

gigglesupstairs 5y ago
Hard to give benefit of doubt to elected representatives who wanted to form an investigative committee by themselves to investigate whether they themselves deployed Pegasus and spied on country’s citizens. “Yeah, right.”, that’s what SC effectively said to them here.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  The problem is that the SC is also corrupt in India and highly undemocratic. Even https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/india-supreme-court-corruption/587152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/in... The judiciary acts like the mafia. Then, in 1993, it ruled that only sitting judges would be able to appoint new members of the judiciary. It was a coup of sorts. India’s founding Over the years, the scale of the problem has become staggering. In 2010, Bhushan’s father, Shanti—who, as the law minister in the government that dethroned Indira Gandhi in 1977, had been a key force in repealing many of her draconian decrees—submitted to the Supreme Court, in a sealed document, the names of eight chief justices who he claimed were “definitely corrupt.” His efforts went no further, though he now faces a contempt case of his own.
  - gigglesupstairs 5y ago
    Everything you just said, irrespective of its veracity, is offtopic in this thread. You can/should create a new post if you want to discuss this.
    - cscurmudgeon 5y ago
      The post is about India's SC. How is discussing its neutrality and corruption make it off topic? The comment I was replying to was discussing the govt appointing its own committee to investigate itself. My point was the supreme court is even more opaque and corrupt. It is not democratically controlled, so the SC investigating here is not necessarily better.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives You and everyone else marching India towards authoritarianism. Following the tracks of every failed democracy that didn't fall to an invasion or military coup fails: not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy. (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.)
- th3iedkid 5y ago
  This sense about a measure of authoritarianism or failure of democracy, feels like a moral high ground, to pick and pry on India , in almost every Indian journal. Yet they write article upon article, in India , of suppression of freedom , which seem not related at all!Why is that? Are these colonial standards essential for all of common-wealth ?
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Not sure what you mean; What sense? what colonial standards?
- sifar 5y ago
  >> (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.) The new assertive Indian supreme court is after the new CJI took office. The previous CJI was very pro government - for certain reasons.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  What makes this democratically elected government authoritarian? India is surrounded by communist China, Islamist Pakistan, Afganistan, Bangladesh (where only a couple of days ago 300 Hindus were murdered by Islamist for no reason), Military dictatorship in Myanmar. I do not know what benchmark you use for authoritarianism.
  - tw600040 5y ago
dddnzzz334 5y ago
> I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said. The court did say this > "This is of particular concern when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information," the judgment said. Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pegasus-national-security-cannot-be-raised-to-get-a-free-pass-every-time-seven-reasons-why-supreme-court-ordered-expert-probe https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pegasus-national...

by sinyug 5y ago

gigglesupstairs 5y ago

Hard to give benefit of doubt to elected representatives who wanted to form an investigative committee by themselves to investigate whether they themselves deployed Pegasus and spied on country’s citizens. “Yeah, right.”, that’s what SC effectively said to them here.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
The problem is that the SC is also corrupt in India and highly undemocratic. Even https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/india-supreme-court-corruption/587152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/in... The judiciary acts like the mafia. Then, in 1993, it ruled that only sitting judges would be able to appoint new members of the judiciary. It was a coup of sorts. India’s founding Over the years, the scale of the problem has become staggering. In 2010, Bhushan’s father, Shanti—who, as the law minister in the government that dethroned Indira Gandhi in 1977, had been a key force in repealing many of her draconian decrees—submitted to the Supreme Court, in a sealed document, the names of eight chief justices who he claimed were “definitely corrupt.” His efforts went no further, though he now faces a contempt case of his own.
- gigglesupstairs 5y ago
  Everything you just said, irrespective of its veracity, is offtopic in this thread. You can/should create a new post if you want to discuss this.
  - cscurmudgeon 5y ago
    The post is about India's SC. How is discussing its neutrality and corruption make it off topic? The comment I was replying to was discussing the govt appointing its own committee to investigate itself. My point was the supreme court is even more opaque and corrupt. It is not democratically controlled, so the SC investigating here is not necessarily better.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives You and everyone else marching India towards authoritarianism. Following the tracks of every failed democracy that didn't fall to an invasion or military coup fails: not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy. (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.)

th3iedkid 5y ago
This sense about a measure of authoritarianism or failure of democracy, feels like a moral high ground, to pick and pry on India , in almost every Indian journal. Yet they write article upon article, in India , of suppression of freedom , which seem not related at all!Why is that? Are these colonial standards essential for all of common-wealth ?
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean; What sense? what colonial standards?
sifar 5y ago
>> (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.) The new assertive Indian supreme court is after the new CJI took office. The previous CJI was very pro government - for certain reasons.
naruvimama 5y ago
What makes this democratically elected government authoritarian? India is surrounded by communist China, Islamist Pakistan, Afganistan, Bangladesh (where only a couple of days ago 300 Hindus were murdered by Islamist for no reason), Military dictatorship in Myanmar. I do not know what benchmark you use for authoritarianism.
- tw600040 5y ago

dddnzzz334 5y ago

> I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said. The court did say this > "This is of particular concern when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information," the judgment said. Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pegasus-national-security-cannot-be-raised-to-get-a-free-pass-every-time-seven-reasons-why-supreme-court-ordered-expert-probe https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pegasus-national...