- 32 minutes ago
On News Track, Marya Shakil reports on the Supreme Court taking a grim view of the INDIA bloc's march to the court premises against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision process. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed that nobody can browbeat the judiciary and that mob entry into court premises is impermissible, issuing notices to Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, and other leaders. The top court also agreed to examine the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani evaluates the legal limits of challenging unanimous Election Commission decisions and questions the suitability of Jantar Mantar for massive demonstrations. The programme further debates the Delhi High Court refusing to halt a protest in Connaught Place, alongside severe political clashes triggered by Prashant Bhushan's admission calling for regime change, drawing sharp rebuttals from the BJP and responses from Congress.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching NewsTrack with me, Maria Shaquille.
00:02The dharna, dhangal and drama over anti-CEC protests in Delhi
00:07reached the Supreme Court's doorsteps today.
00:09And the Apex Court took grim view of Rahul Gandhi and opposition's march to the court,
00:15asking the leader of opposition to explain his behaviour and actions.
00:18The bench headed by the Chief Justice of India also made it clear
00:22that nobody can browbeat the judiciary
00:25and that there can be no mob entry into court premises,
00:30eventually issuing notices to India bloc leaders over this matter.
00:34The court also agreed to examine the denotification of Jantar Mantra as a protest site.
00:39Before I bring in senior advocate of the Supreme Court,
00:42Mahijit Malani, to decode the top court's observations, here's a report.
00:56The country witnessed unprecedented scenes on Monday
01:00when India bloc leaders marched towards the Supreme Court
01:05to lodge plea against the SIR process and CEC Gyanish Kumar.
01:11On Thursday, the Apex Court pulled up Rahul Gandhi
01:14and other opposition leaders over the march.
01:19The Supreme Court asked Rahul Gandhi to explain the intent behind the march
01:24as well as the disorder and commotion at the top court.
01:29It also observed that nobody can browbeat the judiciary
01:33and that there can be no mob entry into the court premises.
01:41The top court subsequently issued notices to Rahul Gandhi,
01:45Malik Arjun Khargev, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra
01:48and others over the breach of norms.
01:53The BJP has used the court's remarks to slam Rahul,
01:56accusing him of trying to create a naki.
02:28Another plea,
02:29a plea heard by the Supreme Court bench comprising
02:31Chief Justice of India Suryakant and Justice Bakchi
02:34concerned the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
02:39The court issued a notice on the plea and said
02:42it would examine whether the decision was taken
02:45after due application of mind
02:47and whether it was based on an independent assessment
02:50of the site's suitability as a protest venue.
02:57All these issues come amid the wider controversy
03:01surrounding the SIR process
03:03and opposition heat on CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
03:08All eyes will now be on the reply
03:10by top opposition Netas due top court notice.
03:15With Anisha Mathur, Bureau Report, India Today.
03:20And joining me on the show tonight,
03:23Mahesh Jaitmalani, senior advocate of the Supreme Court.
03:26Mr. Jaitmalani, the Supreme Court is seeking all documents,
03:29records and file notings
03:31related to the Election Commission's decisions on SIR.
03:34If these records reveal dissenting notes
03:38by Election Commissioners,
03:41including disagreements between two commissioners,
03:44could that become grounds to challenge
03:47or perhaps invalidate decisions?
03:53Well, I mean, as you said,
03:54it all depends on what the,
03:59what those records disclose.
04:01I mean, you can, if there's some material over there,
04:03some material over there which discloses that,
04:06you know, the material has to be
04:08of sufficient probative value
04:09to show that there was something illegal
04:12about the process
04:13by which they came to any decision.
04:15So, if that,
04:17if those records do that,
04:19the Supreme Court will take a view,
04:21not necessarily depend on the weight.
04:25Okay.
04:28Sir, does this then open a Pandora's box?
04:32If internal deliberations
04:34and dissenting notes of constitutional bodies
04:36become grounds for litigation,
04:38could every major decision be challenged
04:40on the basis of disagreements
04:42within the institution?
04:46No, no, no.
04:47This is, this is only where,
04:49where there's a fundamental difference of opinion
04:52which has affected the final outcome.
04:55Not any, the process itself,
04:58ultimately the election commissioners said
05:00that our decisions are all unanimous
05:03and that's all that matters, frankly.
05:05But the Supreme Court wants to look at the record,
05:07right, to satisfy itself
05:08as to what were the note,
05:10was there anything over there
05:11that suggested there was no unanimity
05:13on something on which
05:15there should have been unanimity
05:16during the consultative process
05:18or the decision-making process?
05:19It's up to the Supreme Court
05:20to decide that.
05:22I'm not saying,
05:23I'm not saying this opens up a Pandora's box.
05:25Okay, so let me ask you about
05:27the denotification of Jantar Mantar.
05:30The Supreme Court has sought responses
05:32from the centre, the Delhi police,
05:34on this decision
05:35with regards to denotification of Jantar Mantar
05:38as a designated protest site.
05:40Is this essentially a law-in-order decision
05:43that should be left to the executive?
05:45Or does it raise a fundamental question
05:48about the right to peaceful assembly
05:50under Article 19?
05:55Look, the ultimate discretion
05:58of the place and time, right,
06:00regarding, I mean,
06:02the duration of or the timing
06:05between periods
06:06that a protest movement
06:09should take place,
06:10that decision has to be ultimately
06:13of the police authorities.
06:16The right to protest,
06:17peaceably without arms,
06:18is a fundamental right,
06:19but that right can be regulated.
06:22And that's part of Article 19.3,
06:25that it can be regulated
06:27and it should be regulated
06:29by the concerned authorities.
06:30And the three decisions
06:32of the Supreme Court
06:33have laid that down,
06:34that it can be regulated.
06:36So sometimes you may decide
06:38that this place is not appropriate.
06:39And certainly a city-state like Delhi,
06:42almost a city-state like Delhi,
06:44with its narrow roads and confines,
06:47is not an appropriate place
06:48because you cause insurmountable problems
06:52for traffic,
06:53therefore for the traffic police,
06:54you cause insurmountable problems,
06:56therefore for residents,
06:58for shopkeepers,
06:59for students,
07:00for people who pursue their avocation
07:02like lawyers and doctors, etc.
07:04So yes, I don't think Jantar Mantar
07:06is a suitable place
07:07and it's not because I live here.
07:08I really don't believe
07:10that it's a suitable place
07:12for a protest movement.
07:14Why are you stuck on Jantar Mantar?
07:16They've given you Ram Leela grounds
07:17that gives you a much better,
07:18you know,
07:19no traffic problems, etc.
07:21I think that's one of the places
07:22they've notified for protests,
07:24if I'm not mistaken.
07:26But Jantar Mantar
07:27has been a designated protest site
07:29for decades.
07:30It has witnessed
07:31those agitations
07:33against powers that be.
07:35And isn't the purpose of a protest
07:37about being seen
07:39and to be heard?
07:40That is the very idea
07:41of a protest, sir,
07:43isn't it?
07:46Yes, but you have to now,
07:47you have to now balance that
07:49against competing rights,
07:50you know,
07:50of people.
07:52If it is such a
07:54confined air,
07:56right,
07:56that you,
07:57that basically
07:58you're creating
07:58a traffic problem
07:59that spills over
08:01to the rest of the city
08:02and depriving people
08:04because
08:04the right of protesters
08:06ends
08:06when the rights of others begin.
08:09So if it's affecting
08:10other people badly,
08:11it is not really
08:12a great place
08:13to protest.
08:15I mean,
08:15Bombayle did it
08:16at Shivajipa.
08:19That's a more
08:20appropriate place.
08:21That's not where you get
08:22thoroughfare
08:22and traffic
08:23and, you know,
08:24shops and
08:26restaurants
08:26and things like that.
08:31What's the problem?
08:32I mean,
08:32I think this is a non-issue.
08:33I don't want to say
08:34too much,
08:35Bankly,
08:35about this
08:36because there's a challenge
08:37now.
08:38There's some
08:39petitions have been
08:40challenged.
08:41Notice hasn't been issued.
08:42So strictly speaking,
08:43it's not subjudice.
08:44I don't know.
08:44But in any case,
08:46for the time being,
08:48I'll only say this much
08:49that
08:49Jantar Mantar
08:51is totally ill-suited
08:52for
08:53a protest movement,
08:54particularly when
08:55the numbers get large.
08:57The more they burgeon,
08:58the more unsuited
08:59it is.
09:00You know,
09:00what we are seeing
09:01is that
09:02political disputes,
09:03Mr. Jait Milani,
09:04protest rights
09:05in this particular case,
09:06police accountability
09:08and even complex
09:09financial decisions
09:10increasingly
09:11being contested
09:13in courts.
09:14Is the Supreme Court
09:16then becoming
09:16the ultimate
09:17arbiter of governance
09:18because institutions
09:19are failing to resolve
09:21these disputes
09:22themselves?
09:25No,
09:26I'm sorry.
09:27What is the
09:28dispute here?
09:29If somebody
09:30raises a four dispute,
09:32right,
09:33why are you blaming,
09:35why are you saying
09:36all other institutions
09:37except the Supreme Court?
09:38The Supreme Court
09:39is supposed to
09:40be the court
09:41of last resort,
09:42right?
09:42A.
09:43B,
09:43the Supreme Court
09:44also has the power
09:46of entertaining
09:48petitions dealing
09:49with constitutional rights
09:50such as the one
09:51which exists
09:52under Article 19.1b,
09:54right?
09:54So,
09:56it will come up
09:57to the Supreme Court
09:58if there's a serious
09:59dispute.
09:59Why I say
10:00it's a four dispute
10:01is that
10:02the whole issue
10:03primarily
10:04centered around
10:07the
10:08apparent
10:09cleavage
10:09between
10:10the Chief
10:11Election Commissioner
10:12and the two
10:12others,
10:13right?
10:14Now,
10:16that was resolved
10:17by that
10:17unanimous meeting
10:18which said
10:19that all
10:20final decisions
10:21have been taken
10:23unanimously.
10:24There may have
10:25been differences
10:25during the
10:26decision-making process
10:27but
10:28all final decisions
10:30have been taken
10:30unanimously.
10:32The goalposts
10:33then shifted.
10:34Once,
10:34the sting was
10:35taken out of that
10:35tale
10:36of that little
10:37narrative that
10:38was being built up
10:38that,
10:39you know,
10:40Gyanesh Kumar
10:41was a bully
10:41and he was
10:42riding roughshod
10:43over his fellow
10:43members on the
10:44Election Commission,
10:45right?
10:45Once that
10:46narrative was
10:47debunked,
10:48the goalposts
10:49shifted and
10:50they now started
10:52saying Form 6
10:53illegal and so
10:54on and so
10:54forth.
10:55Now,
10:55Form 6
10:56is very much
10:57up for
10:58decision.
10:59It's pending
11:00before the
11:01Supreme Court.
11:01Supreme Court
11:02gave the
11:04Election Commission
11:04latitude to
11:05make some
11:06changes,
11:06right,
11:08in view of
11:09the fact that
11:10SIR was
11:10upheld and
11:11was in the
11:12process of
11:12being
11:12implemented.
11:13They gave
11:14some latitude
11:15to the
11:15Election
11:15Commission,
11:16right,
11:16to make a
11:17few amendments.
11:18Form 6
11:19was always
11:20there.
11:20What they've
11:21done is
11:21they've added
11:21a declaration.
11:22Whether that
11:23addition of
11:24a declaration
11:24is constituted
11:25or not is
11:26up for
11:26challenge,
11:27right?
11:28It didn't
11:28require a
11:29janter-mantar
11:30thing and
11:31paying for the
11:31blood of the
11:32Chief Election
11:32Commissioner.
11:35Why did
11:36you pay for
11:36blood?
11:37Just because,
11:38and please,
11:39after you've
11:40been objecting to
11:41SIR and you
11:41made this
11:42challenge,
11:43Mr.
11:43Kapil
11:43Sipal goes
11:44to court
11:44and says,
11:45you know,
11:46he's challenged
11:47it and then he
11:47comes outside
11:48court and then
11:48he says that,
11:50you know,
11:50I'm very
11:50dissatisfied,
11:51I don't want
11:51to practice
11:52in these
11:52courts,
11:53there's no
11:53use going
11:53to court,
11:54then he
11:54goes back
11:54to court.
11:55So after
11:56that entire
11:57challenge has
11:58been struck
11:59down,
12:00right?
12:00And there
12:00is still a
12:01remnant left
12:02over in
12:03terms of
12:03Form 6,
12:04right?
12:05The parties,
12:06apart from
12:07their lawyers
12:07whom I just
12:08mentioned,
12:08the parties
12:09have now
12:09participated.
12:11They
12:11participated in
12:12the by-election
12:12which was
12:13post the
12:14upholding of
12:14the SIR,
12:15no?
12:16The recent
12:16by-polls and
12:18they were
12:18roundly
12:18defeated.
12:19So I
12:20expected this.
12:23When everybody
12:23was already
12:25talking about
12:26Nandi Graham
12:26and Rajinagar,
12:28the other
12:28constitutes that
12:29went,
12:29that it's going
12:30to be a
12:31walkover for
12:32the BJP,
12:32right?
12:33I expected
12:34that this
12:35will happen.
12:36Sure enough,
12:37the elections
12:37came out on
12:38the 9th and
12:38the date for
12:39the protest
12:40was 10th.
12:40Everybody knew
12:41the by-poll
12:41results were
12:42coming out on
12:42the 9th.
12:44They came
12:45out.
12:46Not only
12:46did they
12:47lose,
12:47but they
12:48were roundly
12:48thrashed.
12:50And they
12:51participated in
12:52the process
12:53willingly.
12:56The TNC
12:57got 3,000
12:57votes in
12:59Rajinagar
12:59and the
13:01Congress
13:01got 6,600
13:02votes.
13:03That's the
13:03fate.
13:04But Mr.
13:05Jitmilaing,
13:05that's exactly
13:06what the
13:06opposition says,
13:07that the
13:07election isn't
13:08free and
13:08fair.
13:09And that
13:09is the
13:10reason why
13:11the BJP
13:11is winning
13:12elections.
13:12It's the
13:13election
13:13commission
13:14which is
13:14helping BJP
13:16win elections
13:16according to
13:17the opposition.
13:21They
13:22participate in
13:23the elections.
13:24Don't
13:24complain about
13:25those that
13:25win.
13:27After
13:27challenging
13:28SIR and
13:29SIR being
13:30upheld,
13:30they again
13:31go and
13:31participate,
13:32they get
13:32even more
13:33roundly
13:33thrashed as
13:34the
13:34by-election
13:34results show.
13:35So every
13:35time you
13:36win,
13:36these are
13:36poor losers.
13:38They are
13:38born losers
13:38and this
13:39is the
13:39attitude of
13:40spoiled losers.
13:40they can't
13:41take defeat
13:42in their
13:42stride.
13:43They think
13:44this is the
13:44conduct of
13:46entitled
13:46people.
13:47And if you
13:48look at
13:48them,
13:48most of
13:49them are
13:49dynasts.
13:50Dynasts
13:51feel entitled.
13:52They think
13:52they have
13:53arrived.
13:54Look at
13:54how rough
13:55and every
13:56time they
13:56accuse,
13:57which
13:57institution
13:57that they
13:57spread,
13:58please tell
13:58me.
13:58They
13:59boycotted
13:59parliament.
14:01They
14:02have
14:02undermined
14:02the
14:02office of
14:03the
14:03speaker.
14:04They
14:05have
14:05undermined
14:05the
14:06office of
14:06governor.
14:08Then your
14:09EVMs were
14:10challenged.
14:12Then you
14:12have gone to
14:13the election
14:13commission now.
14:16So what
14:16institution
14:17according to
14:18them?
14:18So every
14:19institution
14:19which serves,
14:21doesn't serve
14:22their interest
14:22is a bad
14:24institution.
14:25It's a
14:25subverted
14:25institution.
14:26Look at
14:27their conduct.
14:27You will
14:28have nothing
14:28left.
14:29In this
14:29country,
14:30they go
14:30on like
14:30this.
14:32So let
14:33them go
14:33and protest.
14:34Let
14:34themselves,
14:35you know,
14:35every now
14:36and then
14:36they need
14:36some foreign
14:37funding,
14:37right?
14:38And no
14:39doubt some
14:39local
14:40corporates
14:40funding in
14:41this country
14:41as well,
14:42right?
14:42So they
14:43get some
14:43funding and
14:45it keeps
14:45them happy.
14:46And then
14:46they pat
14:47each other
14:47on the
14:48backs and
14:49say,
14:49wow,
14:49what a
14:50crowd we
14:50got.
14:51But come
14:51around the
14:51next election,
14:52again they
14:52lose.
14:53How many
14:54times have
14:54they done
14:54this?
14:55It's been
14:55happening since
14:562020.
14:58You know,
14:59what we're
14:59also seeing
14:59Mr.
15:00Jitmulani is
15:01that political
15:01parties are
15:02taking every
15:03major confrontation
15:03to the
15:04Supreme Court.
15:06we have
15:06spoken about
15:07this
15:07institutional
15:08accountability
15:08in the
15:09case of
15:09election
15:09commission.
15:10There are
15:10multiple such
15:11petitions as
15:12well.
15:12What should
15:13determine the
15:14limits of
15:14judicial
15:14intervention,
15:15sir?
15:18You know,
15:19I don't want
15:21to say this,
15:22but I mean,
15:23it's the right
15:24of the Supreme
15:24Court to
15:25intervene in
15:26such matters
15:26as the
15:27Supreme Court
15:27deems fit.
15:28They are the
15:29final arbitrators
15:30of what cases
15:32they will take
15:32up and what
15:33cases they won't.
15:34And there's
15:36something implicit
15:36in your question
15:37and I tend to
15:38agree with it.
15:38I think we are
15:40giving too much
15:40indulgence to
15:41people who
15:41don't deserve
15:42it.
15:42It's clogging
15:43up the
15:44courts.
15:44It's purely
15:45political.
15:46Right?
15:47The SIR has
15:48already been
15:49upheld.
15:49If there's any
15:50vote jury,
15:51prove it,
15:51bring it to
15:52the court.
15:53There is no
15:54vote jury
15:55established by
15:56any impartial
15:57authority.
15:58So you
15:59have bad
16:00losers becoming
16:01the accusers
16:02and the
16:02judges of
16:03their
16:03accusations.
16:05That's not
16:06just bad
16:07optics,
16:08bad politics,
16:09but it is
16:10just bad
16:13conduct of
16:14perpetual losers.
16:15Okay, so that
16:16brings me to my
16:17last question,
16:17Mr. Jaitmilani.
16:18How does the
16:19court then protect
16:20fundamental rights
16:20without becoming
16:22a parallel
16:23political decision
16:24making center?
16:25And then,
16:26you know,
16:27what is being
16:27increasingly discussed
16:28here is that is
16:29the Supreme Court
16:30being asked to do
16:31too much?
16:34You know,
16:34of course it is.
16:35It is who,
16:36I mean,
16:37the point is if
16:38people rush to
16:38court,
16:39I think the
16:40Supreme Court
16:40has to be a
16:40little more
16:41selective,
16:42right?
16:42Now why open
16:43a court up on
16:43Sunday?
16:45I don't think
16:45it was necessary.
16:50I don't think
16:51it was necessary.
16:52And then what
16:53happened on
16:53Monday?
16:55these people
16:56are the same
16:56people.
16:57They invoke
16:57the courts
16:58and the next
16:58day they take
16:59hooligans and
17:00crowds and
17:01hordes and
17:02disrupt the
17:03whole functioning
17:03of the court.
17:04They have no
17:05respect for the
17:05courts.
17:07The Chief
17:07Justice has
17:08been called
17:08by the Kerala
17:09Congress by
17:10its name.
17:11They are
17:11Surya Khan.
17:12What kind of
17:13respect is that?
17:16Even if you
17:17have no respect,
17:17at least temper
17:18your outpourings.
17:21You are
17:22basically an
17:22entitled dynasty.
17:23This all
17:24emanates from
17:24a dynastic
17:25party.
17:26Frankly
17:26speaking,
17:27they should
17:28be purging
17:28a contempt
17:29before they
17:30come to
17:30the court.
17:31But the
17:31Supreme Court
17:32says they
17:32are not
17:32browbeaten
17:33by anyone.
17:33So I
17:34take it
17:34at what
17:35they say.
17:36But they
17:37have come
17:37on a Sunday.
17:38They have
17:38been given
17:38an intelligence.
17:40Their lawyers
17:40have gone
17:41outside court.
17:41Their political
17:42lawyers go
17:42outside court
17:43and say,
17:44you know,
17:44we have no
17:44faith left
17:45in the courts.
17:46They still
17:46come back
17:46to the courts.
17:47They get a
17:48hearing on a
17:48Sunday.
17:49All right.
17:50Mahesh Jitmalani,
17:51I appreciate
17:51your time
17:52here.
17:52Senior advocate
17:53there explaining
17:55and putting
17:55this entire
17:56development in
17:56the Supreme
17:57Court in
17:57context for
17:58our viewers.
17:59And even as
17:59the Supreme
18:00Court tightens
18:01its scrutiny
18:01of protests,
18:02protests, the
18:03Delhi High
18:03Court has
18:04refused to
18:05stop the
18:05CJP's
18:06October 16th
18:07protest at
18:08Cunard Place.
18:09The High
18:10Court recorded
18:11the Delhi
18:12police's
18:12assurance that
18:13all possible
18:14legal measures
18:15would be taken
18:16to regulate
18:16and control
18:17the gathering.
18:18And in a
18:18significant
18:19admission,
18:19CJP and
18:20company have
18:21claimed that
18:23they are
18:23protesting for
18:24regime change.
18:25The BJP,
18:26however, has
18:27hit back
18:27accusing the
18:28protesters of
18:29acting at the
18:30behest of
18:30anti-India
18:31forces.
18:31It has also
18:32targeted Rahul
18:33Gandhi and
18:34the opposition
18:35claiming that
18:36their politics
18:36stands exposed.
18:38With the
18:39courts scrutinizing
18:40the protests,
18:41the political
18:42sparring is
18:43only intensifying.
18:44As both
18:45sides dig in,
18:46the big question
18:47remains, where
18:48does the right
18:49to protest end
18:50and the political
18:50battle begin?
18:51Listen in to
18:52these reactions
18:53and then I
18:53bring in the
18:54guests.
19:02and the
19:03regime change
19:03to
19:03change.
19:04I
19:04say that
19:06this is
19:06regime change
19:07is a
19:07regime change.
19:10And we
19:10live in
19:10regime change.
19:11this is the press conference
19:15in the state's conference
19:17and the people of the country
19:18say that their mind is
19:20whether they are Rahu Gandhi's mind
19:22or whether it is Rahu Gandhi's mind
19:25their mind is not the SIR's mind
19:30their mind is not the children's mind
19:32their mind is the only one
19:35and that is the country
19:37and that is the only one
19:43that is Rahu Gandhi's mind
19:46Prashant Bhushan Ji
19:47said that I am fighting for the regime change
19:50we are fighting for the regime change
19:52so I would like to say
19:53that the country is the only one
19:55that is the only one
19:57that is Rahu Gandhi's mind
19:59joining me now is Sanju Varma
20:01National Spokesperson of the BJP
20:02Brijesh Kalappa is National Spokesperson of the Congress
20:05Brijesh Kalappa, you know
20:07these are people who are now associated
20:10with this entire protest movement
20:12of the Congress Party
20:13for them to say that we are fighting
20:15for regime change
20:16are they not undermining
20:18the entire democratic process
20:21the last idea that I got
20:24from the opposition protest was
20:26that you are questioning
20:27the special intensive revision
20:28you are not against the electoral process
20:32that you would go in for elections
20:34and let the people of this country decide
20:36who they want to vote for
20:41Yeah, Maria, see
20:42this is a coalition
20:45of various ideas
20:47and various individuals
20:49one individual has expressed his view
20:51why should I as a Congress spokesperson
20:53try to tell you what his views are
20:56you can ask him
20:57what his views are
20:58Mr. Prashant Bhushan
20:59is not identified with the Congress Party
21:01yes, he probably respects us
21:04speaks highly of Mr. Rahul Gandhi
21:06so on and so forth
21:07if we want to express our views
21:09we have our own leadership
21:11we have our own set of spokespersons
21:13we will say what we want to say
21:15we are not going to
21:17Are you in agreement with him?
21:19is the Congress Party
21:20in agreement with him?
21:21No, I personally
21:21see, I personally may be in agreement
21:23with him, Maria
21:24but that doesn't make it
21:25my party's stand
21:27my party
21:28when it has a view on this subject
21:29it will speak
21:31it doesn't need to rely on Mr. Prashant Bhushan
21:33for a view on this
21:35I am surprised you are asking me this question
21:37we were supposed to debate
21:38on something entirely different
21:40now you ask me this question
21:41about Mr. Prashant Bhushan
21:42I just played out the sound bites
21:45which are doing the rounds now
21:47my concern is
21:49and you know
21:50after
21:51what was seen as an opposition concern
21:54with regards to
21:55free and fair election
21:57is now becoming a completely different protest
22:00movement
22:01being driven by
22:03a lot of individuals
22:04like Mr. Prashant Bhushan
22:06and others
22:07that's the limited point
22:08that I am trying to make sir
22:10No, sir
22:11I agree with your point of view
22:13but
22:14can I ask my BJP spokesperson
22:16to speak about what Chirag Paswan is saying
22:18he is a coalition partner
22:20he has expressed certain news
22:22but I don't do that
22:23there are certain other views expressed by
22:25various other people
22:26fine enough
22:27so why should BJP
22:28Congress be made to answer
22:30to what likes of
22:31Prashant Bhushan
22:32or perhaps even Neha
22:33Neha
22:34Bora
22:34maybe saying
22:37go ahead Sanju
22:38You know
22:40Mariya
22:40I am not
22:41sitting here to
22:42speak on behalf
22:44or against
22:45Chirag Paswan
22:45he can get his own spokespersons
22:47to do the needful
22:48I am sitting in my capacity
22:50as the national spokesperson
22:51of BJP
22:51and I will just tell you this
22:53I have said this on a billion debates
22:55also on your shows
22:56Mariya repeatedly in the last couple of weeks
22:58dissent is fine
22:59criticism is fine
23:01even condemnation is fine
23:02but there is a very thin line
23:04between dissent
23:05and D-E-S-C-E-N-T
23:08when you descend
23:09into the depths of sedition
23:11you descend
23:12into the depths of
23:13prisoners comments
23:15you descend
23:16into the depths of
23:17wanting to obliterate
23:19a duly elected government
23:21look at the language
23:22of Prashant Bhushan
23:23I am ashamed
23:24that this man
23:25actually wears black robes
23:27and represents
23:28the law of the land
23:29in the Supreme Court
23:30I would urge
23:31the Supreme Court
23:32to seek
23:33a mechanism
23:34through which
23:35Prashant Bhushan's
23:36bar license
23:37can be cancelled
23:38I want the Supreme Court
23:40to take notice
23:41of the fact
23:41that while
23:43CJP activists
23:44have a right to protest
23:45Can I finish?
23:47CJP activists have a right to protest
23:48I don't think it's fair
23:49I don't think it's fair
23:51to make this comment upon Mr. Prashant
23:53Yes ma'am
23:54you know the point
23:55that you're trying to make
23:56you should approach
23:57the Supreme Court then
23:58Mr. Kalappa
23:59Can I finish, Mariya, please?
24:02Mr. Kalappa, wait for your turn
24:03So, Mariya, I say this on your show
24:06Does Saurav Das have the right
24:08to protest under Article 19?
24:11Yes
24:11Does Abhijit Dipke have the right
24:13to protest under Article 19?
24:15Yes
24:15Does Ashutosh Ranka
24:17have the right to protest
24:18under Article 19?
24:20Yes
24:20But tell me one thing
24:21Does ACP Vivek Bhagat of the Delhi police
24:25not have freedom under Article 19?
24:28A fake AI generated video of his
24:31was viral on social media
24:32saying he molested a woman
24:35Later it was found that a CJP worker
24:37Nadeem Ahmed did the needful
24:39in wanting to malign the Delhi police
24:41Does Jay Prakash, the senior police officer
24:45in charge of Punjabi Bagh
24:47not have rights under Article 19?
24:49Does Mr. Anil Shukla
24:51the special commissioner of Delhi police
24:54Sanju Ji
24:54You can name a number of cops
24:56You can do that
24:57But what doesn't
24:58what
24:59your government
25:00and the Delhi police
25:01doesn't have any explanation to is this
25:03that
25:04you have picked up
25:06three
25:06boys
25:07from
25:08inside the aircraft
25:11the last time
25:12the last time you was
25:13that they were not fugitives
25:14to be picked up from inside the aircraft
25:18Maria
25:18I want to ask you one thing
25:19you have every right to say
25:22why were they picked up from inside the aircraft
25:24whether they were picked up from inside the aircraft
25:26or should the government have waited
25:28the police have waited for them to alight from the aircraft
25:30is not the moot point
25:32now let me talk about another thing
25:34because I don't want this debate to digress
25:36into something that
25:37is not the moot point
25:38when the Delhi police
25:40have denotified
25:42Jantar Mantar
25:42as a protest site
25:44what was the need for
25:45Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka
25:47to cock a snook at the government
25:50challenge the might of the Indian state
25:52and say
25:53I want to ask you
25:58Brijesh Kalappa is not a spokesperson for them either
26:00so let me
26:01I have just enough time for Brijesh Kalappa ma'am now
26:03so Brijesh Kalappa
26:04let's
26:06come to this point
26:06essentially that
26:07it is
26:08as Rahul Gandhi said
26:09all protests are one
26:11all protestors are one
26:13where is this entire movement now going?
26:16see Maria
26:17the simple point I want to make is
26:20that Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah has come out
26:22yesterday publicly
26:23and he has spoken about the fact
26:26that we are not going to be elected
26:27in 29 also
26:29right
26:29now I wish
26:31we could believe his words
26:33right
26:34the point is
26:36that after having deployed
26:37as many as 49, 50,000 policemen
26:41on the ground
26:42right
26:42after having
26:43tried to stifle
26:45something
26:46something which is absolutely
26:47legitimate
26:48an absolutely legitimate protest
26:51then after that
26:52let's have Brijesh Kalappa on the screen please
26:55yes go ahead
26:55Mr. Kalappa
26:56a day later
26:57that look look
26:58you guys are not going to win
26:59is
27:00I think
27:01an act of complete cowardice
27:02right
27:03and I think
27:04Mr. Amit Shah and his party
27:06must reflect on his actions
27:08alright
27:09because
27:10because ultimately
27:11you know
27:12people will believe
27:13the way you walk
27:14rather than what you talk
27:14yes so the real first test
27:16in the people's court
27:17will happen
27:18when the elect states
27:19go to polls
27:20five states going to polls then
27:22ma'am really appreciate your time
27:23Rijesh Kalappa
27:24thank you so much for joining us
27:28that's all for me on this edition of news track
27:29thanks so much for watching