Lawfully Yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Censorship never accepted by our courts except during the Emergency period

Censorship never accepted by our courts except during the Emergency period

Q: Do you think it is justified to block a news organisation’s website just because a power centre doesn’t like a cartoon on it? How can caricature as an art survive if people wielding power start blocking media outlets for an 'offending' toon on a person holding a Constitutional office? As an artist, I feel the whole art form will fall apart if such is the criteria, though I am against any defamatory or unethical depiction.

-- M Vasanthakumar, Neelankarai

A: Censorship was never accepted by our courts except during the Emergency (1975-77) as the courts wrongly interpreted the Constitution in the ADM Jabalpur case. But along with the development of information technology came the Information Technology Act. Very soon provisions were added to punish people who allegedly exchange information through electronic devices. Section 66-A of the IT Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singal case. But still, Section 69-A gives power to the Centre to block any news including cartoons by giving notice and getting an explanation. This includes blocking the item even before the notice. Poisonous news may spread faster and sometimes it may be difficult to stop it spreading if the procedure is followed. However, this blocking is done more often for criticism of the government and to avoid ridicule. Further, with the setting up of IT wings by political parties and paid trollers, more poisonous, venomous and hateful information is fed into social media. Instead of an information revolution, we are now having disinformation spread by politically paid groups.

Delay has become norm in cheque dishonour cases; fast-track procedure not helping

Q: One guy gave me a cheque for the amount he owed after negotiating and bargaining. When I deposited it in the bank it bounced due to insufficient funds. After trying to collect the money from him several times I filed a case. Even after two years, the case is still in the same status. Not even once did the culprit appear in the court. Initially, my lawyer collected Rs 15,000 as fees. Every hearing he asks for payment and I have spent almost Rs 2 lakh so far. I am fed up with my lawyer's approach and have lost hope of getting my money back.

-- Tholkappian Thols

A: Cheque bounce cases were once labelled civil cases and handled by civil courts. But as they were time-consuming, a fast-track procedure was brought into the Code of Civil Procedure. But they became more time-consuming thanks to multi-tier appeals and revisions in higher courts. Then section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was brought in to bring it as a criminal offence. The net result is it derailed the criminal courts as they do not find time or inclination to hear IPC (presently BNS) cases. Delay is the norm. Now the Parliament is contemplating a new law to refer all cheque bounce cases to Lok Adalats.

I pity your plight. In your effort to recover money, the remedy has become worse than the disease. No other option except to get frustrated with the system of governance.