Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

RTI vs “right to be forgotten online”

December 9, 2011

People ask Kapil Sibal who removed the documents related to Lal Bahadur Shastri,and Subhash Chandra Bose? My forthcoming book on the murder of Lal Bahadur Shastri contains so many hided/removed facts?

Why those facts are not in the government records of India and Russia? http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/post/Godse-to-Gandhi-heirs.aspx

Now Kapil Sibbal asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook to remove disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory content before it goes online.

Sonia Gandhi through Kapil Sibal is forging ahead with its plans to create a “right to be forgotten online” means Orwellian memory hole. Who wants to say Anuj Dhar that Right to Information (RTI) means Right to forgotten?

Why Kapil Sibal and his boss in government and in his Congress Party want to create Orwellian memory hole into which unwanted facts can disappear as they did time to time in the past?

Kapil Sibal is a Supreme Court Lawyer. Has Kapil Sibal not seen how a court in Germany successfully petitioned to have convicted murderer Wolfgang W.’s name removed from the German edition of online encyclopedia Wikipedia, along with attempts to gag the US edition of the web site?
With numerous injunctions against online archives, the two killers were trying to achieve the deletion of their names. Such a deletion was made in the German Wikipedia.

In November 2009 the Federal Court the application of one of the murderers on non-mention of his name at the website of an Austrian media company before the European Court of Justice to clarify, among other things, the jurisdiction of German courts.

The Federal Court ruled on 15 December 2009 that the convicts are not entitled to remove their names from Internet archives; this would mean an undue restriction of expression and media freedom.

The attempt to prohibit the lawyers, even the American Wikimedia Foundation, naming the names on the English page of Wikipedia was unsuccessful – in the English article the names are still available. By seeking the deletion, saw American newspapers like the New York Times prompted to name the names and expressly noting that the citation was protected the name by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (free speech).

agrawalpremendra@gmail.com

Advertisements

Why cooked facts before Supreme Court ?

December 1, 2011

Singhvi, Jaitley , Sibal, Jethmalani on tops to earn crores per annum by pleading in Supreme Court. Why do they not request supreme court for registering Sue-Moto case against the government for neglecting the solid circumstantial evidences related to the mysterious death of Lal Bahadur Shasstri. I am asking this in my forthcoming book on the murder of Lal Bahadur Shastri: http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/post/FIR-against-Kiran-Bedi-not-on-complaint-of-Lalita-Shastri-in-1966.aspx

Many times Court takes decision on the basis of cooked facts such as on Sohrabuddin case.

The Narendra Modi government had used the contempt card on Nov 30, 2011 to allege that CBI was guilty of denigrating the entire Gujarat judiciary by relying on source-based information to allege that the kith and kin of accused were posted as prosecutors, magistrates and judges in lower judiciary in Gujarat. The agency had immediately expressed its readiness to seek deletion of the offending paragraph.

Now on Dec 01, 2011, Shah and Jethmalani equally guilty must face contempt action, Centre to Supreme Court.

Is it a rehearsal bullfight on behalf of Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi for 2014?

 

Secular vs Communal encounter

Gujarat Fake encounter was communal and Nandigram Fake Encounter was secular. In Gujarat accused communal police officers were sent in jail but in West Bengal neither police nor CPM cadres are charge sheeted because they are secular. Farmers, Soldiers and Security force are forced to make suicides due to the UPA government’s policy. Is it not non-violent fake encounter?

 

Teesta and NHRC have misguided Supreme Court
To receive cooked facts Supreme Court made comments on its Subordinate HC of Gujarat, reopened and transferred the case in Mumbai. Teesta and other so called -secularists used this as weapon against Nationalists, Gujarat Govt., Narendra Modi, Gujarat Police and its judiciary. Congress spokes person Abhishek Manu Singhvi called Gujarat police as communal police to shake hand with Teesta.

Congress for dishonoring the orders of Supreme Court such as:

* Rajiv Gandhi to please Muslims went against the order of Supreme Court on Shah Bano case.

* As reported on Jan 16, 2006: A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal directed that the government should take steps to maintain the status quo and ensure that the frozen accounts are not unlocked.
But on the direction of Law minister as requested by B Datta, additional solicitor general of India, the high court in London ordered to defreeze Quattrocchi’s two British bank accounts. And thus he drew Rs 21 crore from the bank with the help of UPA Government. Why two London bank accounts of the Italian businessman, key accused in the Bofors pay-offs case, were defrozen at CBI’s behest.

 

agrawalpremendra@gmail.com