According to Bar and Bench, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the government to refrain from cancelling his OCI card until the next date of hearing. The cancellation would have led to his deportation due to the cancellation of his visa. 

However, the interim protection was subject to Kumar filing an affidavit, within the next four days, affirming that he would “encourage restraint on the tweets qua judiciary and matters that are sub-judice and further undertakes that he would delete the tweets that are against the judiciary and matters that are sub-judice”.



 PUCL is outraged by and strongly condemns the cold-blooded shooting down by a 3-member gang of politician and former minister, Atiq Ahmed and his brother, Ashraf Ahmed, at about 1030 pm on 15.04.2023 in Prayagraj (Allahabad) Government Hospital, in public and in the full glare of the media.

What is most deplorable is that Atiq and Ashraf, were surrounded by an armed team of policemen who allowed a set of media persons to interview them, when the 3 killers came to the spot in motorcycles, whipped out sophisticated guns and shot the brothers in cold blood at point blank range, with the armed police remaining as mute spectators doing nothing to prevent the slaughter.

This position of the UP government led by Yogi Adityanath which asserts that criminals are not entitled to the rule of law is antithetical to the values of the Constitution. To those in the public who support this amoral position that ‘gangsters’ should not be entitled to the benefits of rule of law, one should note that once an exception is made in the grand edifice of rule of law, there will be others who, the state will argue, don’t deserve the protection of `rule of law’. If this trend is not checked the state will feel emboldened to opt for vigilante justice, including extra judicial executions, against all those questioning its actions and policies. The ground for this has been prepared through the relentless delegitimisation of all dissent, dubbing those who are exercising the right to free speech as ‘anti-nationals’.

We appeal to right thinking citizens concerned about the total breakdown of constitutional order to stand up and raise their voices to condemn state lawlessness. We also appeal to the Supreme Court of India to take up the matter suo motu, considering the grave repercussions the matter can pose for the rule of law in the country. Full statement > Kalpana Kannabiran Nov. 20, 2022 

Banal neologisms like “urban naxal” are elevated to the status of judicial descriptors – thereby conferred official recognition as categories that invite carceral treatment disregardful of the absence of specific actions that might warrant arrest and prolonged detention/imprisonment; disregardful also of the law in place; and disregardful of the fact that strict adherence to procedure in criminal matters is central to the protection of human rights.

What is not acknowledged but growing by the day is the disquiet around the travesties of justice, where the long shadow of the khap panchayat falls on courtly environments bolstered by majoritarian rhetoric.

For this reason alone, it is time to turn the tide. 

Writing, speaking, singing, public protest – on the roads, in universities and worksites – is public education on constitutional rights and provide occasion for citizens to remind governments of their fiduciary responsibilities set out in the Constitution.

Surely, irrespective of what levels of impunity governments claim and demand, we must at this time echo literary critic and writer KV Ramana Reddy, jailed during Emergency, who stood in court and asked:

“What on earth is this Parliamentary supremacy for? To beat down the judiciary?” (Court statement February 23, 1976.) 

The Supreme Court has significantly overruled its 2011 judgement holding that mere membership of banned associations is not sufficient to constitute an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act offence but that it needs to be accompanies with overt violence.

In an order which could have far reaching impact, a bench of Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol also upheld Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, reported LiveLaw. The section deems that membership of an association which has been declared to be unlawful is an offence.

The bench also said that the earlier bench had made a “mistake” by relying on US Supreme Court judgments, as the right to freedom of speech and association as per the Indian Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions.

24/03/2023 On "Rights, Duties, Directive Principles: What is Fundamental?" By Justice Rohinton F. Nariman (Retd.), Supreme Court of India
11th November, 2022