 Hello, everybody. This is another episode of upfront with me at leaflet. Today we have two very distinguished guests to noted jurist, former judge of the Supreme Court of India justice local who headed the social justice branch of the court for many years. It's one of the rare judges who has been very vocal and voicey for us on the issues of human rights, civil liberties and judicial activism, and we have in the adjacent. Again, a very noted human rights lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India. Welcome to a friend program at the leaflet justice local. I would like to start with you justice local. You, since you retired, have been writing a series of papers and articles on the issue of civil liberties and fundamental rights and it has been a concern in a country increasingly over the last few years, the way the state has been suppressing freedom of speech, and has been denying civil liberties to many people who have been incarcerated on supposedly seemingly flimsy charges. You wrote a recent piece. This is in the wake of the Delhi High Court judgment on Natasha Narwal Devangana, Caleta and acidic balls bail application. Where the Delhi High Court interpreted you a PA in a certain way before giving bail to the three student activists, and you pointed out five questions. So I'd like to start with that justice local. What is the biggest concern with the way of one the the Delhi High Court interpreted you a PA and then following which the Supreme Court had state order, practically state order. Yes, thank you. You know, first of all, I just want to clarify that I have not commented on the judgment of the Delhi High Court. In fact, I've said that in the first paragraph itself that I'm not being any comment on the judgment of the Delhi High Court. I was only concerned with the process that was involved in the initially refusal of bail by the trial code. But as far as the interpretation of the law is concerned by the Delhi High Court. So you have to go back into the provisions of the UAPA. And while doing that you have to go back to the provisions of Tata terrorist and disruptive activities act photo prevention of terrorism act and then comes UAPA. Essentially, I believe that bail is a matter of right, you know, it's not a matter of vision for the judge, of course, the judge has to, you know, also you use his discretion is our discretion granting refusing to grant me and imposing conditions, but it's really a matter of right, which right can be curtailed or stopped on the basis of submissions made by the prosecution. Now, if you look at it from that point of view, under Tata, it was said that that was the first law 1987. It was said that they can be refused if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the offense. Okay. Now, how do you say that a person is not guilty of the offense. The person who is accused of the offense will say, listen, I'm not guilty. All right. Now, the public prosecutor has to be heard, he will say he's guilty. So the court will have to see why the public prosecutor is saying he's guilty. It will also have to see why the accused is saying he's not guilty. So they will have to be this, you know, arguments back and forth, so to speak, that the court will have to look into and then come to a conclusion that I think that there are reasonable grounds for believing that this person is guilty. In POTA, it was more or less the same, right, except that instead of reasonable grounds for believing, they said grounds for believing. Okay, but really that doesn't make much of a difference because it still has to be reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. Now, if you look at it in that light under UAPA, the bail provision says reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. Okay. Now, in all three statutes, both the sides have to be heard. Otherwise, an accused will say that listen, why are you hearing the other side? I'm telling you I'm not guilty. And these are the reasons I'm giving you why I'm not guilty, don't hear the other side. But that would be a very strange sort of a situation. So similarly, under UAPA, if the prosecution says that listen, I think there are reasonable grounds for believing that what I'm saying is prima facie true. The accused can say listen, this public prosecutor is not giving the entire truth, or there are no reasonable grounds for believing that what he is saying is prima facie true. So there has to be a hearing of both the sides. And this is something which has been acknowledged by the Delhi High Court. And the Delhi High Court has then come to the conclusion after hearing both the sides said listen, we don't think there is any evidence against this person. And therefore, prima facie, we don't think that there is any ground for believing that the accusation made is prima facie true. That being the position, the provisions of UAPA are not attractive and therefore the persons are entitled to be. You know, it's a sequence that has been going on since 1987. And I think the conclusion of the Delhi High Court is logical in that sense. Besides the bail provisions and where you explained the process involved in disposing of the bail applications of the accused under the UAPA Act, you have also raised questions about the police process in the sense that how the charge sheets were not delivered on time, how the physical charge sheets were not given or perhaps deliberately denied. And even the registration of multiple FIRs, some of these FIRs seem to be more tactical. You also highlighted that how when accused got bailed in one FIR they were arrested in the court at the very same time when they were bailed out in the earlier FIR. And even when they were bailed by the Delhi High Court, that order was again forced on, which means that the police said that look, we have to verify the addresses. The all in culmination justice local, it seems that there was a witch hunt against the student activists and which you have highlighted, and this witch hunt doesn't restrict to this case. It has been going on in various other cases as well, which is the way the sedition law has been applied the way. I know the right to protest peacefully has been denied and an MP recently was arrested under sedition act and sedition law and was also tortured during police custody. So, is there a pattern in the way the state has been acting against those it believe are ideologically opposed to to its stance. Do you see a pattern. You know, I'm not sure whether it's only ideological, right. It's a question of disagreement also, in the sense that, you know, I may have the same ideology as a particular person but I don't agree with that person. You know, I don't agree with the policies of that person or the views of that person, even though the ideology may be the same. So it's not really, you know, so much ideological as a general pattern that if somebody does something wrong, you know, let's fix that person. You know, that famous, you know, kind of attitude that that is what is, you know, a little troubling. And, you know, come back to this point that you just raised that that this this approach of talk to has is becoming a norm and the default rule by which the state is playing. But I'd before that I'd like like to ask Indra one question Indra. You know you have been representing the behemoth Corrigan accused. What is your interpretation of a terrorist act, because while deciding the bail application of the three student activists we just spoke about the Delhi I called had to go into the definitional issues, which is section 15 what is a terrorist act whether they were the prime office I case of terrorism. According to you, what is terrorism is inciting a riot, an act of terrorism. I will also preface my comments with a caveat. You point out that I'm representing some of the accused in the behemoth Corrigan case and the matters of Judas. So I will not refer to the facts of that case. However, you know that worldwide, we don't have a standardized definition of what is terrorism. All we have is what is a terrorist act. Now, I would however like to put on the table my definition of terrorism for the reading of international law at the heart of the issue of terrorism is intimidation an act of intimidation. So, what is terrorism it is intimidating the government to do or not to do something. The impact of which is felt by ordinary citizens of that state, ordinary citizens of India, I would say. For example, you might say that the hijacking of the aircraft at Kandahar was an act of terrorism because demands were made release on so on so on so on. And failing which the aircraft will be blown up. So that would be a classical case of terrorism and a terrorist terrorist act. My approach to the question that you raised is to look at the plain meaning of the section. Now I would like to draw your attention to the plain wording of section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. And this is what it says, whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten. Now please listen carefully to these words, the unity, the integrity, the security, the economic security, brought in by an amendment by the UPA government, or the sovereignty of India over the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people. Now pause here. This is intelligent thinking people. We know the distinction between an act, which threatens the unity of India, the integrity of India, the security of India, and the sovereignty of India. And there is some ambiguity about the use of the word sovereignty, but in my opinion, it is used here in the top context of unity integrity and it's probably meant to refer to territorial sovereignty. What I have noticed in actual practice is that this section is invoked in the case of an ordinary act of violence. By the way, the section also requires to be a terrorist act, the use of deadly weapons, which cause death or likely are likely to cause death, etc. So what I've found is that looking at the cases that are registered in India, I have found that none of those, even state in the FIR, that there was an attempt to attack or threaten the unity or integrity or sovereignty of India. What I think here is the way this law is being interpreted by the police, the prosecution, the decision makers is that they collapse the difference between government and India. As Justice Nogur pointed out, you may disagree with the policy of the government of India. You may dissent. You may oppose. You may protest. It doesn't amount to an attack on India. And I think it's very important for us to make that distinction between an attack on India and an attack on a policy of a government. Otherwise, we're liable to end up in a situation where you say the government is India and India is the government. So you say a particular individual in the government is India and India is that one individual. So we really need to distinguish between the two. And my, I've been saying for very long, every riot is an offense under the Indian people call, but not every rise is an act of terrorism. This is the essential difference that we need to make when we are looking at laws. Right. So, fine, but there are, but there are riots and then there are organized riots. So what if there are organizations who by slogany ring by organizing meetings by giving call to people to arms of first create an environment of of communal disharmony, communal discord. They give a call for a bond, and then they organize their carters, the distribute arms and weapons to them and then they read a particular neighborhood and they kill more than 100 people. What is that is not an ordinary riot. This is a very organized riot and it strikes terror in the people. Is it not terrorism. She's rather than talking abstractly. I think we need to refer to real life situations. I'm talking to real life situations. So suppose Naroda party in 2002. Yeah, we have now convictions both by the trial court and also by the high court conviction. Yes, by the high court. That's right. Yes, if I can just refer to the trial court judgment where the judge actually uses the world terrorism, while convicting them and says that they struck terror in the people. So, yes. Is that not terrorism. So, when I was referring to real life situations I really wanted to come back to the some of the most recent what we have come to describe as programs we don't even call them rights anymore. And there is a there was a debate in the public domain that you don't even call it a program you call it genocide. Okay. So, we know what happened in 1992 post the demolition of the boundary mustard we've also seen good job 2002. And I would, I would say that yes, those are cases where your section 15 of the UFA, I could have been invoked but one also and also 1984 rights. That's right. That is right. 1984, as well. I would say that those are cases where section 15 of the act could have been invoked, but was not invoked. And so that brings you to the question. How come this act is not invoked in situation like that, whereas it is invoked for somebody like the show Ravi or Natasha, or, or any of the recent cases that we've seen. Yeah. Now, so the only conclusion I can draw is that prosecution in this country is a political act. And let us not forget that who launches the prosecution right who launches it it's the police and who is the police accountable to the police at the end of the day in this country is accountable to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Right. So, although the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot interfere with an investigation that's the law. But the act of invocation itself of a particular law becomes a political act. And in that sense, I think we are seeing an ideological use of the law justice, you asked the question. Justice local respondent, but it is an ideological use of the law. I can give you examples but their subject is in the case of the Makorega. I have raised the issue in my petition of what we now call selective prosecution. Why go to be my career. Let's have a look at West Bengal. The Sudrendra, Adikari, and Mukul Roy were not prosecuted in relation to the same Narada scam for which sitting ministers of the West Bengal government were arrested. So this is an act of selective prosecution which is valid of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I'd like to go back to justice local justice local Indra pointed out by giving various, you know, real life examples about the political misuse of laws and all laws are susceptible to misuse some more than others. There is a user law theory which is that you give any law in the hands of the police and you show me the man I will show you the law. But this is where the role of the judiciary becomes very, very important, especially in the case of national security legislation and anti-security, anti-terrorism laws, the way they are applied. So sedition, waging war against the nation, preventive detention act, earlier Tadapota now UAPA. So what is, according to you justice local, the role of the judiciary, especially the role of the magistrate, the role of the lower judiciary when dealing with these cases where prime of his side there appears to be an abuse of law. Well, I think the, you know, the judiciary has to be alive to situations. It just can't, you know, I don't accept that ivory tower theory at all. The judiciary has to be alive to situations. Now, you know, you have grades of offenses, right? Worst offense, if I may use that expression is terrorism. Then you have something a little lower down in the ladder under the UAPA you have something about an unlawful activity. Unlawful activity has been defined as sovereignty integrity of India and session and session. Then you have IPC offenses. All right. Now you have sedition, for example. Sedition talks about causing exciting or tending to excite disaffection against India. That is sedition. Now, in one of these statutes, I think it is, yeah, it's in UAPA. Causing or intending to cause disaffection is an activity with most terrorism and it's an activity which amounts to unlawful activity under the UAPA. Okay. So, now you have the same act, the same act can be a person can be prosecuted under the IPC for sedition 124A. The same person can be prosecuted under the UAPA for an unlawful activity. Punishments are different. Provisions are different in terms of, you know, bail and so on. But the offense is the same. The definition is more or less the same one uses the word exciting, you know, the other one says causing. So, the judiciary has to make that distinction. And this is one of the distinctions which the Delhi High Court has made in a sense where they say that, listen, if it can be done under the IPC, prosecute that person under the IPC, why do you have to go to UAPA? All right. So, because UAPA is a much harsher provision in terms of punishment and so on. So, don't use that, you know, if the same result can be achieved by IPC. But if you think it is something, you know, much greater. Now, in this case, much greater would have to be terrorism. So, unless you equate sedition with terrorism, you proceed against a person for sedition under IPC. And this, you know, of nature which perhaps comes in the definition of unlawful activity, I don't find I can't say what would come under the definition of unlawful activity. A seditious act which would come under the definition of unlawful activity then you proceed under UAPA. Not that because I have the power to proceed under UAPA, forget about IPC, I'll proceed against under UAPA. And that distinction has to be made and appreciated by the judicial because you are not dealing with an ordinary case. You're not dealing with an ordinary person. The case is one of terrorism or not of terrorism. Right. The person is a terrorist or not a terrorist. You're dealing with the life and liberty of that person, supposing he's not a terrorist. And it's not a case of terrorism. And you put that person behind bars, you're all right, you know, I'm throwing away the piece. The consequences are very serious. That is the difference which I think the judiciary should appreciate. Right. So Justice Locour, this has been a perennial problem, which is of misuse abuse misapplication of anti terror laws, right from the mid 80s since we had Tata in place, then came pota. It is well documented justice Locour that both under Tata, then under pota and now under UAPA, a large number of people who are detained and prosecuted eventually get acquitted. Now, the question still remains after three decades of our living lived experience with special extraordinary anti terror laws. How can we achieve sufficient judicial oversight of police and prosecutorial decision making. I think that question still remains at large and what can the Supreme Court do to ensure that there is enough accountability and enough. As you pointed out that the lower judiciary is alive to the situation. You see the Supreme Court has said in Prakash Singh's case, long time back, that there must be separation between the investigation and the prosecution. Right, not in the middle. All right, that's one. The second thing is about, you know, the judiciary being alive to all this. Now, yes, there is misuse. Yes, there is abuse. But what about, you know, National Security Act that is also being abused. Right. In the newspapers, I found a very strange write up. Madhya Pradesh, I go set aside the preventive retention of a person because he was selling oxymeters at an inflated price. Right. Now, I don't know how much an oxymeter cost, maybe 1000, 2000 rupees. He couldn't have been selling it for one lakh or something. People are not so stupid. He's been selling it for 2000, 3000, 4000, whatever it is. He may have sold hundreds of them. Is that a question of national security? Right, so when you have these laws and they are abused, the judiciary has to come hard on the abuse. Nambi Narayan. Right, the court said, Supreme Court said, listen to the big cost compensation. Okay, 50 lakhs, I think. Now, in a situation like this, the fellow was in jail for about 50 days. Why can't the court say, what kind of bogus preventive retention order you have issued? Big cost. Now, unless the court comes down heavily on the abuse of the law, I'm not saying misuse, they can be different views. The trial court thinks it's a misuse, high court thinks it's not a misuse, judgments can be reversed. But abuse is pretty clear. Right. So there, I think the court should come down and tell them what is going on. Right. And you pay compensation for whatever. Right. Ms. Jai Singh, I would like to ask you, Justice Lokore has very eloquently spoken about that how each of these cases need to be more effectively, judiciously dealt by the judiciary at various levels. From your experience as an additional Solicitor General. Do you believe that state can prevent terrorism while also simultaneously guaranteeing human rights, or must the police and the state trade off some human right protections to effectively prevent or punish acts of terror. Look, that'll be the end of the rule of law, the so called trade off. Yeah. So I think it's very important to say it loud and clear that what we are talking about here is the protection of the rule of law. Equal, equality for following equal protection of law. So equal protection of laws means whether you're a terrorist or whether you're a saint, you're entitled to the same protection of the law. And therefore this trade off. Yeah. But you know, I can tell you you wanted my experience as an ASG let me tell you as an ASG is handling a lot of cases on behalf of the CBI and prosecuting people against whom cases have been filed including police officers. And I can tell you that in the Surabhudin case, which is more than famous notorious as a case in this country. Council, or get up in court and argue my Lord, we should be thankful. By the way, on behalf of the accused police officer, these comments are made in court. My Lords, we should be thankful that a dreaded criminal has been done to death. We should not be prosecuting the police officers who have done them to death, even if it was done extra judicially. Now, what amazed me is that a submission like that is made in the highest court of the land and the judges. Listen, keep silent. I don't know what goes on in the minds of judges. So I leave that comment over there. But but Ashish, I would like to say that our disappointment often is with the highest court of the land that is the Supreme Court of India. We have noticed in the recent past high courts have been giving judgments which you could characterize as within the bounds of rule of law and therefore progressive. For example, I am deeply disappointed by the fact that the Supreme Court said, while admitting the appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, this will not be treated as a precedent. Now I have a comment to make on this. I would have I would have welcomed the admission of this appeal because we would like to see that interpretation endorsed by the Supreme Court of India. And it is not my case that this appeal should not have been admitted. You know the race against time to get these people released on bail and I fear that if they were not already out then the Supreme Court may even have had the opportunity to stay the operation of the bail order but that's just speculation. What is on the table is an order which says it shall not be treated as a precedence now. You know, in law, the it is only a judgment given under Article 142 where the Supreme Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction to do complete justice that they can say in the facts and circumstances this will not be treated as a precedence. What are the judgments of any court, including a constitutional court, which is a high court and a Supreme Court. No one not even the Supreme Court can say it shall not operate as a precedent, because a precedent operates off its own force. It doesn't. It is not binding the only question is what is the binding value of a precedent. The judgment of the Delhi High Court will not bind any other high court in the country they can use it as a persuasive judgment, but to say that this cannot even be cited in another court it shall not be treated as a precedent. So everything goes beyond the four corners of the law so therefore we are disappointed. And what really matters is judgments of the Supreme Court because they operate as the law throughout the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India We do. You did ask the question to Justice Locour earlier that what can we do about a magistrate who refuses to read the plain text of the law and say look this is not an offense under UAPA, but my question is a bigger question. My question is what do we do. The answer to that is only the Supreme Court can correct what we call subordinate courts and therefore we should focus our attention on what the Supreme Court does and doesn't do. Justice Locour you I'm again going back to one of your articles where you wrote about the rule of law and in that article you wrote about the culture of impunity, and you said confidence of the police that its conduct will not be inquired into leads to a culture of impunity. Now when the police over and over again in cases gets away with blood on its hands or gets away with the stifling of free speech or civil liberties. You think that this is leading to a state of affairs where there is terror in the hearts and minds of the people who'd known necessarily agree with the government of the day. And this will eventually erode, not just the rule of law but it will also eventually erode the very democracy of which we are so proud of. Yes, you see, it's like this, it's actually not only the police, you know, but it's also bodies like the organizations like the enforcement directorate, for example, or the narcotics control view. Now, if these, you know, authorities get away with doing something wrong, I mean something which is patently wrong. It is definitely going to, you know, have an impact on society. And that's why I think it's, you know, broader question than the ideological thing. Now, the enforcement directorate for example may not necessarily be concerned about ideology. Okay, but they can still, you know, get after the person, NCB, they may not be concerned about ideology, but they can still get after a person, somebody like Rhea Chakravarti, for example. Right, she was not opposing the government or anything, but they got after her. So once these, you know, bodies like the police, NCB, media, whatever, you know, once they know that nothing is going to happen to us, if we do something wrong, then fine, you know, we can take the law into our own hands. And that's when the rule of law becomes compromised, so to speak. And that is what we have to be careful about. Right. And you have also at various points spoken about compassion and expeditious justice and access to justice. And compassion is one element which we saw in your term when you were heading the social justice branch of the Supreme Court, which we increasingly find lacking. Not only when it comes to, say, disposing of bail applications, but also in various other cases like, you know, PILs filed for say migrant laborers or people who are displaced because of the overnight imposition of lockdown. And so many other cases. I would like to ask you, what do you think is the future of the of the social justice jurisprudence in the country. You think that the social justice jurisprudence in the country has suffered a setback over the last few years in the way the higher judiciary has over and over again by sided with the executive and for one reason or the other failed to give enough saccharine relief to the dispossess and the underprivileged. Yeah, I think it has suffered a setback. I'm pretty clear about that. You know, we are talking when we talk about social justice in the context of the social justice bench, we are talking about disadvantage persons, right marginalized persons. Now, you had the situation of last year, you know, of the migrants. Now, obviously, on the face of it, they were disadvantaged and they had to trudge back home when a girl had to, you know, cycle, I think 1000 kilometers or something with the father. Right. Now, if the board says that listen, So what is this migration. Then there's something wrong. You know, you can't, you can't just ignore the plight of millions of people. Okay, even hundreds of people, you can't ignore it. You have homeless people, you have people who are unable to, you know, the cost of this COVID treatment. First of all, going to a hospital, spending money in the hospital. A lot of people have got impoverished because of that. Can you say when, you know, what can, what can we do about it? We can't do anything about it. You can't look at it, you know, in that sort of a manner. We don't even treat prisoners of war in that way. Why should we treat our own people like that? So I think compassion is very, very important. And social justice is very important. But over the years, I think, you know, things like, you know, the economy or economic justice has distinguished from socio economic justice. And these have been highlighted. How do you see the case of Stan Swami, an 85 year old Jesuit priest where he had to go to the courts or in Oregon for something as basic as a sipper or a straw. Yeah, that's a question of compassion. You know, if I remember correctly, correctly, if I'm wrong, the jail authority said there's no provision. There's no rule or whatever in the prison manual would say that you're entitled to a sipper or a straw. But is there a rule that says that you cannot be given a straw? There's no such rule. So if he asked for a straw, why can't it be given to him? You know, why is it that a negative is used to deny something to a person? Now, what is he going to do with a straw? He's just going to drink water or, you know, whatever he wants to drink with it. He can't start a revolution or something with a straw. That's where compassion comes in. And then you say you go to court. Now, fine. There may be lawyers who have gone, you know, pro bono, who have assisted in pro bono. But supposing a lawyer says, no, no, no, you see, I need my fees. And he quotes a figure of, you know, four figures for a straw, you know, which you can buy a packet of straws, I think about 50 to be the 100 rupees or something. And what does he want? He just wants one straw. He doesn't want 100 straws. That's where compassion comes in. You know, or you have a situation like this Natasha where her father died. Has there to be an argument that, oh, you know, she wants to go, her father has died. It doesn't have to be an argument on that. Yeah. That's where compassion comes in. Yes. And if that is lacking, you know, we're in trouble. Right. And state functionaries, police specialized agencies, prison officials, sometimes overtly, sometimes, you know, indirectly, they trample upon civil liberties, and sometimes even commit offenses. You know, as a former judge of the Supreme Court, as a, as a, as a jurist, you think that these kind of broad immunities, whether by convention or by law, which have been granted to government officials and state functionaries. They are the justified and necessary. And like, not at the very spirit of the rule of law. Yeah, I think we have to have a real look at all this. We have to have a real look. In that case of Benny and his father in Tutikorin, you know, who were bashed up and they died. Right. What has happened to the police? Yeah. It's been about a year or a year and a half. I don't know. What happened to those people who you know, staged an encounter or there wasn't an encounter one doesn't even know what happened. When those four people were killed. Right. What happened to that person who was killed in an encounter or was trying to run away near Kanpur. He was killed. These are instances which are a year old, if not more contrast this with George Floyd. Yes. It's been a year that policeman has been convicted and sentenced. Yeah. And we are still trying to figure out, you know, whether the people who bashed up Benny and his father, Benny and his father died. It's not that they were only bashed up. They died. We are still trying to figure out, you know, what happened. Yeah. It can't be like that. So we have to, we have to, you know, revisit all this. Yes. Otherwise, we're inviting trouble. You know, if you say, it's a part of life. You know, as we're going on for the last over the years, a couple of years, but in the next couple of years, we can do it. If I may ask you, from your 50 years of long experience dealing with cases of human right violations and violations of civil liberties. How do you think one can ensure that special courts and special procedures enacted under anti terror laws follow judicial independence and the requisites of a fair trial. Ashish, I don't think I can answer this question without raising a few larger issues in this discussion and what I have noticed is that as we speak goalposts are changed. Now, if you amend the law and say this is not the law, how do you expect a lawyer to go to court and argue. Well, this is the law. Let me give you a couple of examples. If you take article 370 of the Constitution of India, all you need to do is to amend the law and say, the state government shall mean the central government. You've changed the goalpost throughout your life you've been arguing that is the state which will take a decision what is the future of JNK and suddenly you turn around and say, no, it's a central government. I can give you any number of examples of this you take the CAA. Okay, I've grown up all my life thinking that almost thinking that everybody who was born in this country is a citizen though citizenship in our country is not only based on birth but then in a very creeping fashion you have laws which say no, both your parents must have been of Indian origin then you say one of them. Neither of them should have been an illegal migrant and finally you end up with a law which says, we will still give you citizenship, notwithstanding the fact that you entered as a illegal immigrant, provided however you happen to be a Hindu. So, I think there are, there are, you know, much, how does one answer a question like that. Okay, if you want to know my feeling I can tell you my feeling I don't have an answer but when I started my practice as a social justice lawyer. I was under the impression that one just has to argue for social and economic rights and then this country will be in a state of paradise if we can just eliminate poverty. That's that's our only problem. But today if you ask me the same question I will say I'm sorry I was very mistaken. What I need more than my economic and my social rights is my political and civil rights. And because why because your civil and political rights gives you the right to speak up. Right. And I think that the people we are talking about whether they are marginalized or whether they are political dissidents they have only one weapon in that armory, and that is their voice. You take that away and you have taken away their life. Okay, there is nothing left to argue for then you can, you know, you can give a person as much food as you want you can give that person as much clothing and housing as you want but if you don't give them the right to speak. You have achieved nothing so I think we need to understand why is it in this country that the goalpost is changing all the time why is the secular character of the country being dismantled brick by brick. I have an answer to that question. I don't think we can people like me who are not in the judiciary on the other side. I'm my tools for advocating for justice, having taken away systematically. And then what are you left with you're left to the mercy of the Supreme Court now, we are not supposed to be left to the mercy of the Supreme Court. We are dependent on the law, and the law is a tool it's a very powerful tool in our hands so I would argue for the return of that tool as we speak, Ashish. Justice Locor is surely aware of the fact that the bar council of India has just issued rules to say that you can criticize the judiciary. And if you do, you'll be disqualified as a lawyer now. How can I answer your question Ashish, I have no answers. To be left to the to be left at the disposal of the Supreme Court. If I can go back to Justice Locor, which is this a new trend has emerged in the last few years which is the tactical registration of FIRs. It's something you say something you write and then different complainants in different parts of the country they register in FIR coming emanating from the same act or same article that I wrote. Again, the Supreme Court has dealt with these kind of tactical registration of FIR or this kind of abuse of territorial jurisdiction also in a very uneven manner. So, again, Justice Locor you wrote an article where you contrasted the Arnav Goswami case with the Amish Devgan case and those two cases also with other cases where there was not a relief for many other people who are on the receiving So, how do you deal with this, this new pattern that is emerging in a country that a writer and author, an activist is susceptible to facing simultaneous prosecutions possible prosecution in different parts of the country for for something as simple as writing an article. Yes, again, that that is an area that has to be looked at right and it's not only territorial, it is it can be a multiple FIRs. For example, you write an article in Delhi today. Alright, somebody is unhappy with the article. And let me tell you this is not something which is new, it is something which has happened in the past. So, you write an article and somebody, you know, in the Northeast files an FIR against you. Okay, now according to Delhi Police, it takes three days to go by Rajasthani from Delhi to Gohati. That's what the Delhi Police told the trial judge when they wanted to verify Devangana Katta's address. So somebody files the case against you in some village or some, you know, district of Nagaland. Another person files something against you in Jammu and Kashmir, somebody files against you in Kerala or Lakshadvik, right, it's not really to go, somebody in Andaman's. Okay, now, should that be permitted? You know, so this is something which has to be looked at, now this is sheer harassment. You know, the police says you can't go to all these six, seven different places. So you have a problem not only of territory, but you have a problem of multiple FIRs filed against you. Now, when I said this has happened in the past, there was a time, you know, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the check is bounced. Now somebody in Maharashtra for example, somebody in Karnataka for example, gives a check which bounces. This person opens a bank account in Sikkim, right, and gets a notice issued from Sikkim and says you've come to Sikkim. Now, should that be permitted? You know, so we have to look at these laws because today, many of them are being procedure laws. Many of them are being misused if not abused. So we need to have a fresh look at many of these things, right. So I think this whole business of writing articles and 10 FIRs being filed against you and 10 different parts of the country is nothing but sheer abuse. How many people can actually go to the Supreme Court and say that listen, there are 10 FIRs against me and you please club them and send them to one place? Yeah, everybody can't go to the Supreme Court. Okay, but now I think what has happened, which I think is very, very interesting. There was some person who was to be, who was summoned by Delhi Police few days ago. He said, I'm not coming. All right, so the Delhi Police said you go to his house and you question him over there, interrogate him over there. So they went to his house and they interrogated him. Probably the interrogation was not complete, whatever I do know. Then now the police, all right, now you appear before us through video conferencing. Okay, very good. Now, Karnataka High Court has also passed a similar order with regard to the Chief of Twitter in India that the police in UP can examine him through video conferencing. Do that. Then the police will also come to their senses. So you don't have to bring Disha Ravi from Bangalore to Delhi to question one. You can be done through video conferencing. Yes. Right. I think, I think this is something which, you know, people should take advantage of that you if you want to someone somebody and interrogate him through video conferencing. Let's see what happens. Right. And I would just like to end this conversation justice local with one final question which is before the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary, some very profound questions of credibility are looming large, especially when large number of people in this country, they believe that the process of justice is very uncertain, expensive and torturous. As a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Do you feel concerned about the diminishing faith in judicial relief that a common man expects from the highest course of this country. I do feel concerned certainly certainly you see it's like this. The judiciary has had bad times in the past. But there has to be the will to bounce back. And unless that will is shown by the Supreme Court, things may not improve. And let me tell you, you know, after the emergency, the Supreme Court bounce back pretty fast. The emergency was over in 77. In 79, you started getting these judgments of local standard being relaxed. In the case, you had public interest litigation for two years, and maybe less than two years for the Supreme Court to bounce back. But there was a will at that time. I don't know whether today there's a will or there is no will. Perhaps the Supreme Court can bounce back. But if it is a kind of attitude, there's a problem. Yeah, Indra, if I can come back to you for one final question as a civil rights lawyer with 50 years long practice. What do you think is the role of lawyers like you to ensure that judiciary is one alive to the ground reality, and is also alive to the need of a very expeditious and effective relief to people who have been wrong by the state. What what role do you think lawyers like you can play. It is no longer possible to play a role only inside the courts. I think advocacy for civil rights has to be done inside and outside the courts. Yeah. And the so that's one. So that's one way in which I think we can move forward. You know, at the heart of this debate is a political issue. What is the idea of India do we want to see an India, which is being secularism is being dismantled. And, or do we want to fight for the preservation of secularism, whether it's inside or outside the courtroom I see that as a major role of civil rights always because it's only in a secular framework that people like us will get justice, not in a framework which is, which has a judicial Hindutva state would make it impossible for any rights adjudication to take place because in that case you don't need a court right you your your rights are then guaranteed by government and you don't need a court to go to. So that is one that is one role that I see. And of course the other is to, you know, inside a courtroom to keep raising these issues without fear, I think, look, the, there is a major problem with the with the way the legal system functions. First, there is in the judiciary and in the legal profession, the institution of dynasty. Okay. The second thing is that most lawyers seem to think that their success depends on their finding favor with judges. And here is where I think that the legal profession needs to undergo a road change. And we, a direct answer to your question is to argue fearlessly, politely and in a dignified manner before a judge, your point of view, without worrying that you're going to lose I would suggest no compromises be made on what you see as the proposition of law as the correct proposition of law and not just end up with with ad hoc orders that ad hocism in the judiciary has gone very far. And I must say that I don't enjoy arguing my cases in in a quarter of law in an ad hoc manner. I think in the future, it is your, it is your skills your forensic skills as a lawyer be grounded in constitutionalism, which is the way forward for civil rights lawyers in this country. Thank you so much justice local. Thank you, Miss Indra for speaking to the leaflet and for this very illuminating and informative conversation on accountable jurisprudence on compassionate jurisprudence on the rule of law, and a very very topical issue which is off the anti-terror and security laws and their possible misuse and misapplication. I believe that there will, there is no other area of law which is being more vigorously contested and debated than the issues related to law of sedition and the Supreme Court of India has finally agreed to hear the constitutionality of section 124A, which is a law of sedition all over again. And I believe that the 2019 amendment of the UAPA is also under a challenge for its constitutional validity. So we'll hear more from the Supreme Court, more from noted jurists like Justice Locour and Indra in the coming days on on issues of human rights and civil liberties and their interplay with the laws of the land. Hope to see you soon in one new episode of leaflet with where we'll be talking on a similar issue of public importance. Thank you for watching.