 Thank you. And one more whistleblower from within the system has spoken. Thank you for organizing this meeting, Lawyers for Democracy and Justice and Lawyers Collective. Nothing new for Lawyers Collective to be doing things that are unpopular but very, very necessary. And as Indira very rightly pointed out, the silence that followed the judges press conference and perhaps the biggest owners did lie upon the legal fraternity and therefore it was our duty to speak up. Many things have been said and I agree with much of what has been said. I want to just add two, three dimensions to the ongoing conversation. Today is 23rd March. I don't think it's a coincidence that this meeting has been organized on the day. That's what I'm saying. It can't be a coincidence knowing you. I wouldn't imagine that. So it is the martyrdom day of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. And I think that is a very important part of what is the nature of democracy. And I agree with what Mohan Gopal, Professor Mohan Gopal has said to us today, that it is the relationship between the independence of the judiciary and democracy and what is the dynamic relationship between the two. What I want to emphasize here is that just as there are those who speak from within and saying that they are speaking out because democracy is in peril if the independence of judiciary is compromised in any which manner, whether it is through appointments or it is through allocations. At the same time, the credibility and confidence that the people of this country will have in this institution and it is the only institution to place any curbs on the extraordinary and arbitrary paths that the executive and the state has would also depend on what the judiciary does within. And therefore I would emphasize that when we talk of independence, it is not just about monetary independence, it's not just about independence from the government of the day, but it is about linking it to the oath of office that Indira J. Singh read out. What is the constitutional ideology that they have committed themselves to? It is not the neoliberal ideology of their present economics. It is not the uppercast Brahminical ideology. It is not patriarchal ideology. It is not communal non-secular ideology. That is what that oath of office says. And I want to know whether the judiciary is actually able to be independent in that sense. That is the emphasis that I want to add because the clients that I invariably represent are not those with whom any of them would have socially networked. When we talk of independence and therefore judges will not meet, actually what we are saying is they will only meet their own because that network continues. And it is that network and the power of that network that constructs the discourse, the discourse of misuse, the Rajesh Sharma judgment of misuse and what are the phrases used very, very similar in both judgments that there is acknowledged misuse and recent studies, not even a footnote. I don't know what they're talking about. It is the power of that network to create a discourse which is actually the two-day ago judgment against the very purpose and mandate is not just the SCST Act. It is the constitutional mandate. The only part of the fundamental rights that recognizes an offense. It is a constitutional offense which has been made, which has been undone in a measure by this judgment. Where is this coming from? What are the ideological moorings that we are here to quarrel against? And I would just want to emphasize that that is also an element that we must talk about very, very seriously. When we talk about appointments, it cannot only be about corruption and it cannot only be about the mechanism of how it is to be done. If the nature of democracy has to change, then it will have to be about the ideology and the plural perspectives and the plural representation in the judiciary if the credibility and the confidence of the people of this country is to be maintained while there will be whistleblowers from within and I salute each of those four judges. I think it is absolutely remarkable what they have done for all of us in this country. But I would also say that it is up to all of us in the bar and within the courts to ensure that the constitutional ideology and the debt owed to the most vulnerable and marginalized is there. Let me take a very small example and end. A few days ago I was before the Supreme Court, and the rover is appearing in the Athar matter. My passport was not being given to me. A Tatkal passport I applied for because they said, you have to give an Athar number. I have not taken an Athar. I have not enrolled for an Athar. It's a conscious political decision I have taken. I will wait for the judgment of the Supreme Court and then whatever has to be done will be done. A senior counsel, Mr. Arvind Dattar, very kindly appeared on my behalf and a passport was granted. In the petition I had made, I cited Menaka Gandhi, right to travel abroad is recognized as part of right to life with dignity. The bench understood. Section 7 of the Athar Act is about basic food rations, basic health facility, midday meal, scholarships, their lives and literally their lives depend on it. I'm grateful to the court for giving me my passport without compelling me to get an Athar. But the exception to section 7 also told me a story. Today I have had to go to the Atoni General because now I can't file my income tax return without an Athar. So there is an issue when the impunity of the executive is not curved by the Supreme Court. The executive has tasted blood and it will continue to do this until and unless the Supreme Court cracks the whip. The last thing I would say, I continue to appear on behalf of Shamima Kausar, the mother of Ishwara Jahan who was murdered in a staged encounter along with three other men. That case is following exactly in the footsteps of the Surabhuddin Sheikh case. It's going on in a CBI court in Ahmedabad. We will continue to appear the lower judiciary, the CBI court, in the case of P.P. Pandey where Ms. Jai Singh had actually appeared on behalf of the CBI at one point of time. He has been discharged in a case where there are statements recorded under 164 against him in a criminal conspiracy. Discharge has been given to him. The well-known and famous, infamous police officer Vanjara has next applied for discharge. The media is not reporting. Nobody wants to report that story. The judiciary is giving discharge orders which both on facts and in law are completely and totally wrong. The only reason why we will continue to fight one because that is what Shamima Kausar will do and that is what my duty is. I also represent the victims of Hashimpura murdered in 1987. We have found a document and got an order from the High Court to go back to the trial court and put that on record as evidence. People should just learn from contemporary history around them. In 1987, 43 people were gunned down by PAC during Congress rule. Their case is alive and they are fighting for justice and there are lawyers who are doing it. I'm the counsel for the victims and now the counsel for NHRC. These cases will also stay alive and justice will be sought against all odds. That is the reason why the ideology of those who sit within is also very, very important and they must reflect and represent and they must understand the lives of the Adivasi woman in Chhattisgarh the Musofarnagar person whose cases are being withdrawn and there is silence or encounters, fake encounters in UP and there is silence. And then those persons as was said earlier by Manish and others become incumbents of the National Human Rights Commission and we go there imagining that overnight a different human rights jurisprudence will take place. So when the institutional credibilities are in question they start having a ripple effect across institutions. When we raise questions of independence of judiciary I would emphasize the independence from the allegiance to the constitutional ideology which must be the marker of those who get appointed to the judiciary. Thank you.