Always the majority have their own way in India. When lakhs of people gather at a place and they do all kinds of non sense, it is called they are protesting and they have a right to protest. Arvind Kejriwal is doing the same thing as what Shiva Sena has done to the Doctor's clinic. No one should not take the law in their hands.. Arvind cannot go and disconnect or connect a electric service. This amounts to rowdyism. India is going mad to enjoy power and loot. The action of the Bombay Police is a proof towards that direction. No political party has opposed the attack on the clinic of the Doctor consequesnt to the comments in the FB.

Police were wrong.

If they did not understand IT act they should have consulted those who knew the law. If there is any commonsense you would easily understand it was non-cognizable offence ( even if it meant offence) and comes under the provision of IT act of Govt. and also just for sheer commonsense it only represents a freedom of express of an opinion.

CM of Maharastra should suspend these police officers and cut their pay scale in order to make other police officers who might probably behave like this in future.

If expressing an opinion itself is a crime then I must have been arrested at least a thousand times because in the last 8 years I think I have written blogs, comments numbering may be five thousand and more!

These 21 year old girls did not abuse anyone, did not write to inflame passions or religious feelings or write any matter that can be termed as obscene or false. They only expressed an opinion about a Mumbai bandh that was all.

But Govt. cannot take any action without a preliminary report and hence the Home minister asked a report from IG of police. Once that is there on his table he must take action against the police officers who framed up the charges against these innocent girls.
First girls of 21 years should not be called to police station after sunset and that is the law.

second: the offence is non-cognizable and also it comes under the purview of IT ACT and if the police officers concerned are ignorant , they must consult who knew what to do and after deliberations or after sending the matter to the higher authorities only they should have framed up the charges.

third: since already the damage took place, Govt. must pay compensation to the girls for trauma that was caused to them and the compensation should be nearly a million rupees.

Since these are girls the issue kicked up controversy very fast . It may be that if they were male , the issue might not have assumed this proportion. But we must remember we must uphold democratic values.
 

 Sorry for the double post.

 Aditya Mookerkee,

What exactly are you trying to say? Your post has left me confused, but I will try and answer some of your queries.

Would it be acceptable, if a person told a retired military personnel, that the President must live not long, after retirement?

If that's what you believe,go ahead. Retired military personnel have no say in how long an ex-President should live, nor is it of any consequence.

Also, what if I told a serving military personnel, that the President does not represent the armed forces?

Serving military personnel would be duty bound to explain the constitutional provision that the President is the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces. In practice that means nothing. If you were to say this to an ex-serviceman you would get your ears singed. The previous President has been universally lambasted by the ex-serviceman community for her indifference to their complaints. Instead of using her moral authority to force the government to make a fair appraisal and resolution of disputed issues, she refused to meet petitioners, refused to accept a petition because it was signed in blood and she was afraid of contarcting HIV and refused to accept medals which were surrendered. The less said about her usurping military land for her post retirement residence the better.

People are saying pretty uncomplementary things about senior ministers, in every state, and in the Union Govt. What if Mr. Katju was told on retirement, that he is not doing the judiciary a service, by being employed by the govt.?

People say uncomplimentary things about Mr Katju and so have I. Should I be put in prison for that?

If he could feel disappointed, why cannot a person feel angry?

Are you angry at the way Sibal's Law is being misused or are you happY

The govt. is saying, that every comment can be considered, about the institution, but not in the Police Station, nor outside the army premises, if not inside.

I must be exceptionally stupid, but this sentence beats me.

 Mr Mookerjee,

I fail to understand your post.

As far as Justice Katju is concerned, I believe he is a pontificating bufoon. However, in this case he has articulated what many believe is right.

The President of India is Constitutionally the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces. In practice that means nothing unless the incumbent of the office uses his moral authority to make the government do what is right. If you "told a serving military personnel, that the President does not represent the armed forces" he would be duty bound to explain the constitutional provisions. If you were to tell an ex-serviceman the same thing you should be prepared to have your ears singed.

The previous Supreme Commander has been universally lambasted by the ex-serviceman community for her indifference to their complaint. She refused to accept a petition signed in blood because she was scared of contracting HIV. She has refused to meet petitioners when they came to surrender their medals. The less said of her usurping army land to build a post retirement mansion the better.

As to how long an ex-President should live, retired military personnel have no say.