Skip to main content

CASE COMMENT ON KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS V/S UOI

 CASE COMMENT ON  KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS V/S UOI


INTRODUCTION 

India was placed 142 in the world press index for 2020, down two places from its 2019 level. According to the Free Speech Collective, 67 journalists were detained in 2020. Many of them were charged with felonies such as sedition and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) legislation, which make bail extremely unlikely.


One of the most controversial cases in recent memory is Kerala Union of Working Journalists vs. Union of India. Siddique Kappan, a Kerala-based news reporter, was detained on October 5, 2020, as one of many journalists detained last year. In Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, he and three other males were apprehended.. In the middle of the outrage over the rape and death of a young Dalit girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, Kappan was detained while on his way to cover the story.


FACTS OF THE CASE 

Kappan was allegedly travelling to Hathras to stir disturbance and communal conflict, according to the hefty 5000-page charge sheet. The police accused him of having ties to the extremist Islamist group Popular Front of India (PFI) and of using PFI to raise funding for anti-national operations

He was detained under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), 295A(outraging sentiments) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Additionally , Sections 14, 17 and 18 of UAPA and Sections 65, 72 and 76 of the IT Act were also applied.

 

After his arrest, the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ), of which Kappan is the Secretary, filed a writ petition of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court. On October 7, Kappan was remanded 14 days of judicial custody by a local Mathura Court. The Additional District and Sessions Judge of Mathura court finally considered his bail application on November 13, twice after his custody got extended without substantial grounds. The Court, however, rejected the plea citing Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Finally, in February, at the request of KUWJ, he was granted merely five-day interim bail to visit his ailing mother in Kerala.

 

On April 20, Kappan tested positive for Covid and was hospitalised in Mathura. KUJW filed a plea seeking his transfer to AIIMS. Even his wife Raihanth Kappan wrote to CJI NV Ramana for his immediate release, describing his distressing condition in Mathura hospital. Taking notice of the same, the Apex Court ordered the transfer of Kappan from UP to Delhi for better treatment.






COURT’S OBSERVATION 

"The most precious fundamental 'right to life' completely embraces even an undertrial," the Supreme Court of India ruled. The following consideration is taken in light of the unique facts and circumstances of this case. We will not be deterred by the fact that other convicts in the jail are being treated similarly to the arrestee."


The fact that other jail detainees receive similar assistance is insufficient to dissuade the court. The right to life is extended to pre-trial detainees in this case. As a result, he will be sent to a government hospital for proper treatment. When doctors deem him fit, he should be sent to jail and given the opportunity to pursue the legal remedies available to him.



CONCLUSION 

The case of journalist Siddique Kappan is a tragic example of human rights violations and restrictions on journalistic reporting. Noncompliance with criminal law provisions is something that many of these cases have in common. The circumstances in Kappan's case showed a number of criminal justice infractions that were in violation of Indian laws and Supreme Court rules, exposing the illegality of such detentions.

There are numerous such examples, such as Siddique Kappan, of which many have not received any type of media attention and are locked in a never-ending battle for legal representation and bail.

In the face of such inequality in terms of persecution in the national ecology, the Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India decision,where in at the end it was held that even undertrials are subject to fundamental Right to life. They are entitled to receive adequate medical aid and reliefs pertinent to their needs is warmly welcomed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more