Trilobite wrote:An objective assessment of I&B notice and subsequent withdrawal should suggest that this was a self goal...yet another. But do spin away if it helps assuage cognitive dissonance related issues!
In a way yes, the main stream media has highlighted this as a U-Turn. But looks like the whole thing has also brought out some fissures in various Press bodies.
Centre withdraws fake news guidelines after outcry . This report states;
"The Editors Guild acknowledges the intervention of the Prime Minister's Office to withdraw the I&B Ministry's notification but remains deeply disturbed that faith continues to be reposed on the Press Council of India to deliver justice on such issues," read a statement issued by the Editors' Guild of India.". Now why does Editor's Guild NOT have faith in Press Council of India? Are they at loggerheads?
.
MehtaRahulC wrote:The judgment benefits RSS = BJP. Because most accused in SC/ST cases are OBCs. So this judgment worsens the caste divide between SC/ST and OBCs.
Thanks for highlighting one important thing. When it comes to caste/community based discrimination most often the discrimination is done by one caste just above the caste/community against whom discrimination was done. Looks like it is not the omni-present evil (and favourite whipping boy); the Brahmins who directly lead such activities.
That being said the bench which heard this case has not removed any provisions of the law, or diluted any provisions. All the order says that the existing provisions would have to be strictly adhered to.
1. The current Act stipulates that such cases should be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Supdt. of Police (Dy.SP). This provision has not been diluted, and so it is the duty of the state governments and the state police that the provision is met.
2. The provisions of arrest are to be based on the rules in Cr.PC, and if arrest of a govt. servant requires approval from his superior authorities, this has to be followed. The new order did not introduce this process.
The bench was right when it observed -
“Sometimes, people agitated may not have read the order properly. There may also be some kind of vested interests involved.”
Muns wrote:Maybe I'm having a really slow night but from the link below it states that Supreme Court was trying to protect Dr Subhas Kashinath Mahajan by stopping the Bombay high court order against him to arrest him.
From what I could understand from the latest reports (in which the court declined to stay its previous order) is that the Act was not diluted in any way. All the court said was that the provisions in the Act (regarding the rank of the investigating police officer etc.) and the provisions of arrest (based on provisions in Cr.PC) etc. has to be strictly followed. If that is not followed the case may get thrown out. For eg: If an atrocity case against SC/ST has to be investigated by a Dy.SP, the local SI or PI cannot do the investigation and arrest some one; and the SC/ST groups protesting if things don't go the way they want (immediate arrest and accused being locked up).