December 24, 2025 • 25 mins
First, we talk to The Indian Express' Sohini Ghosh about how the government is asking online platforms to takedown specific content, and what that means for the freedom of speech online.
Next, The Indian Express' National Legal Editor Apurva Vishwanath talks about a key court order in the National Herald case that has stalled the ED prosecution against the Gandhis. (12:15)
In the end, we talk about a university professor’s suspension over an exam question and the larger debate it has sparked about academic freedom. (21:45)
Hosted by Ichha Sharma
Written and produced by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Next, The Indian Express' National Legal Editor Apurva Vishwanath talks about a key court order in the National Herald case that has stalled the ED prosecution against the Gandhis. (12:15)
In the end, we talk about a university professor’s suspension over an exam question and the larger debate it has sparked about academic freedom. (21:45)
Hosted by Ichha Sharma
Written and produced by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
In this episode, we talk about a key quote order
in the National Herald case that has stalled the ed
prosecution against the Gandhes. We also talk about a university
professor's suspension over an exam question and the larger debate
it has sparked about academic freedom. But first we talk
about how the government is asking online platforms to take
(00:23):
down specific content and what that means for the freedom
of speech online. Hi, I'm Micha Sharma and you're listening
to three Things the Indian Express New Show. Over the
past year and a half, India has seen a new
(00:45):
form of digital enforcement take shape, where the state can
directly approach online platforms order content to be removed, often
within ours and in some cases do so without judicial oversight.
And at the center of this ecosystem the Sayuk Portal,
which was formally rolled out in the latter half of
twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Four, so the Sayouq Portal.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
It's an initiative under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
That's the Indian Expresses Sohnihosh.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
It was piloted and then launched in the latter half
of twenty twenty four. And the portal what it aims
to do is basically expedite the process of sending notices
to IT intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agencies
under provisions of the IT Act, and the purpose of
(01:38):
sending such notices, as outlined for the portal is basically
to facilitate removal or disabling of access to any information, data, etc.
With the prime focus here being criminal activities. So any post,
any sort of communication that is being undertaken between different
(02:01):
platforms or in the digital sphere, if it's unlawful, if
it's a criminal act, say for example, you're orchestrating or
kidnapping over I don't know WhatsApp.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So that is where the portal comes into play.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
It issues a notice to say, for example, WhatsApp that
a criminal activity is going on, you have two disable access,
she says.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
The CEO Portal is actually in part to issue these notices,
and this section seventy nine to three B of the
IT Act, which is also referred to as the Safe
Harbor Provision.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
The Safe Harbor Provision basically says that if the government
or any law enforcement agency is flagging a content to
be unlawful or criminal, you have to first take it down,
and only after you take it down. Can you raise
any grievance or appeal If you, as a platform think
that what the alleged offense was is not being made out,
(03:00):
you are of a different opinion. The first step is
you have to first take down and only after that
you can raise those issues.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
So he he tells us that since last year, the
Indian Cybercrank Coordination Center, the division overseeing SAYOG, has told
quotes that it is in the process of integrating the
APIs of around eleven hundred digital entities into this system.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So this includes your Internet service providers, your social media intermediaries,
telecom network providers, even crypto exchanges, etc. And as for
the government part of the portal, it would also onboard
your law enforcement agency. So for example, the idea is
(03:46):
to have every police station, every law enforcement agency office
on this portal. Have a person, for example, sitting at
your local thana, he or she or they they find
something objectionable on the web, they use this portal, they
immediately raise the request of takedown. And because the intermediaries
(04:11):
their API is integrated, what it essentially does is it
cuts off any human interaction from the intermediary side and
the pullers basically can just raise an issue and take
down the content directly, so in a way you are
cutting out any judicial overview.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
At the first instance at least.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
She says that most major platforms have already been on broaded,
with the exception of x formerly known as Twitter. According
to records reviewed by The Indian Express, since March twenty
twenty four, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued ninety
one takedown notices to XCORD, flagging more than eleven hundred
URLs for removal.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
So XCORT was issued no notices between March twenty twenty
four until what November this year? At least the data
compilation we had it had those notices, and all these
notices were issued under ITACH section seventy nine three B.
And although these were not issued through the SAYOG portal,
(05:20):
to be very clear, these notices are using the same
legal provision that SAYOK portal uses, which is again ITACH
section seventy nine three B. So effectively, the notices we
are going to discuss it can be pretty much a
representative reference or to what we may see if and
(05:42):
when XCORT on boards SAYOG, and what those kind of
orders would look like once they're on board SAYOK that is,
if they're ordered.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
To do so.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
And what's particularly striking is not just the volume of
these notices, but the reason cited most frequently. Nearly half
of these notices cited disturbing public order as the primary reason.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
So essentially, anything and everything.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
If we look at the entire compilation of the ninety
one notices, pretty much everything and anything is a public
order threat that they're citing. A lot of these notices
are also using serious sections like say IPC one fifty
three eight, which is basically stoking communal tensions. So end
(06:34):
of the day, pretty much all the notices have this
element because if we really look at a macro view, yes,
everything is a potential threat to public order, it's quite
vague in those terms. Now, coming to the content of
such notices, so a lot of the notices that were
asked to be taked down, a lot of them the
(06:57):
Home Ministry claims that it contains doctored content, doctored video,
false statements, fake news, so these are very commonly used.
The Ministry pretty much flagged a lot of these aspects.
Some of these content that they asked take down for
it also included, say, use of obscene words or acts
(07:22):
a lot of the content also included posts by opposition
party affiliated handles, say from a congress sharkened Twitter handle
post or some TMC leaders post.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So we do see a combination. But what are striking
here is the fact.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That a lot of these posts that were asked to
be taken down it involved the opposition parties.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
We are not seeing the same kind of proactivity.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Say in asking for takedown miners looking at the party affiliation,
which is what an ideal platform should be doing, or
an ideal provision of the law be used as uniformly.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
That is what the expectation would be.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And what's interesting is that only fourteen of the ninety
one notices alleged clearly identifiable criminal activity such as betting,
fraud and financial scams.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
However, what really stood out for me was the fact
that there was only one one out of ninety one
notices which flagged child sexual abuse material. And for research,
I just had to type pond on the search bar
(08:41):
of X, and you are flooded with material.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
I do not see how there could have been only one.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Notice out of ninety one flagging this kind of material,
which I mean child trafficking, human trafficking or pornographic content.
These curving these activities in the digital sphere has also
been a point of emphasis for Delhi High Court because
essentially the portal and its function it actually took form
(09:13):
because Delhi High Court was pursuing a case pertaining to
a hebeous corpus of a nineteen year old boy who
remains missing till this day. So the High Court at
the time had basically High Coat's focus was that there
should not be any conflict between the law enforcement agencies
(09:34):
and the social intermediaries when it comes to crimes like
these or when it comes to tracking down missing persons,
which are essential law enforcement activities.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Now, among the notices which The Indian Express reviewed were
also take down orders for alleged manipulated or AI generated
content targeting the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, the
Finance Minister, and even posts by the opposition. But Sony
tells us that in several takedown cases Xcorp pushed back.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
X has pretty much termed this as a censorship portal
before the Karnatuck High Coat, where it is basically challenging
the constitutional legality of firstly the content blocking orders that
the government is issuing under seventy nine to three B,
and also the fact that sayog portal in itself, which
(10:29):
uses the same provision, is unconstitutional. And one of their
key contention is see as a government body or a
law enforcement agency, there is already a provision under that
which is your section sixty nine A.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
And the best part about that.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Is it comes with certain levels of checks and balances. So,
for example, under section sixty nine A, the government is
empowered to issue blocking or takes down orders, but it
is not completely left to the discretion of government to
define what an alleged offense is being made out to be.
(11:09):
Sixty nine A clearly says that the whatever content you're
flagging for takedown, it should meet the benchmark of offenses
pertaining to or affecting national security and public orders. So
there's a very clear guideline in terms of the share
single judgment here. Those fetters are gone for the government.
(11:31):
So even assuming in good faith that the government is
flagging content which is genuinely violative of the law fare.
But why is government the sole decider of this aspect?
Before you can approach for any sort of legal remedies,
there has to be any system has to work within
(11:52):
checks and balances, and that is something that X has
been continuously pushing back on because.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Technically all the social.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Media intermediaries have accepted this system of seyok portal and
being asked to take down content. X is the only
one which has not accepted this proposition, putting up a
legal fight.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
So yeah, and next we turned to the National Herald case.
For the past few years, the Enforcement Directorate has been
investigating members of the Gandhi family along with several office
bearers of the Congress Party, who have been accused of
illegally acquiring assets worth two thousand kro rupees belonging to
(12:38):
Associated Journals Limited, the former publisher of the National Herald newspaper.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
But earlier this week, a.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Deli court declined to take cognizance of the Edies prosecution complaint,
effectively putting the case on hold against Sonia and Rahul
Gandhi along with five others named in the matter. To
understand why the court took this step and what that
means for the future of the case my grief, Shashang
Phargav spoke to The Indian Express's National Legal editor, Apurva wish.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Fornath breakdown the EDES case for us. How is the
EDS saying that the gandhis and these Congress office bearers
acquired these assets worth two thousand.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
So we're saying two thousand krols because Associate Journals Limited,
this public unlisted company which publishes or used to publish
this newspaper called National Herald, that company has assets.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Worth two thousand cross is the ADES claim. Right.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
So Associated Journals was running into losses and at some
point the Congress Party, the AICC had loaned ninety crores
to AJL and this loan was of course not repaid
for a very long period of time. Subsequently, this other
company called Young Indian and this is a private not
for profit company what we call a Section twenty five
(13:57):
company under the Company's Act, which means even when they profits,
you can't like book them out of the company.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Right.
Speaker 6 (14:03):
So, this Young Indian company bought the rights to recover
this loan that was given to AHL by the Congress Party,
which means they bought this from this right from the
Congress Party. So but they bought it for a price
of just fifty lakh rupees. Right, So a ninety crowd
loan was essentially bought over by this company for just
(14:24):
fifty laks and this company about seventy six percent of
shares are held by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The
EDS case is basically this that the AGL converted this
outstanding loan of ninety crores into equity shares in favor
of Young Indian and therefore it defrauded the shareholders of
(14:44):
AHL as well as you know the public donors to
the Congress Party. So the Congress Party of course gets
its money from public contributions, right like any other political party.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
So this is the EDS case.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
And can you tell us how this case first came
to light and who initially filed the complaint.
Speaker 6 (15:02):
So this case was first brought about by BJP leaders
Superman and Swami. So in ED language, this is what
we call a private complaint, which means it's not an
agency which flagged it to the ED. And usually it
is you know, say the CBI or the NIA when
they are investigating a certain crime, so they would flag
it to the ED and then ED starts investigating that
(15:24):
money laundering charge.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Right, So in this case, it wasn't an agency.
Speaker 6 (15:28):
But these allegations were made by Superman Swami in a
private complaint to the d and this complaint was made
by Swami in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
In April this year, the.
Speaker 6 (15:37):
ED finally filed a prosecution complaint, which is basically like
filing a charge sheet in any normal crime.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Right, And what is the reason that this Deli code
then refused to take cognizance of this matter? Why why
did you do that?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (15:51):
So that is essentially what is linked to the larger
story of how the ED has been functioning. And this
is something that we've been talking for the last couple
of years, right that the Enforcement Directorate has time and
again insisted that money laundering can be a standalone offense,
which means even without a predicate or a precursor offense.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
And here can you explain what exactly a predicate offense is?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
So what is money laundering?
Speaker 6 (16:17):
Money laundering is basically where you use the proceeds of
a crime.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Right.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
Suppose in a dakoite you got fifty lakh rupees which
is what you stole, and with that fifty lakh rupees
you went and waughtterhouse.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
So that is money laundering. Right.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
You showed the proceeds of crime as your own money.
And that's where the ED will come in, say attached
to property and say, look, these are proceeds of crime
and you cannot be using this. But for the ED
to do that, you have to have first committed dakoity, right,
the actual offense from which the money laundering charge flows.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
That is called a predicate offense.
Speaker 6 (16:53):
So the EDA has been saying, even if we don't
have a predicate offense, we can always investigate money laundering
as a standalone offense. Here is where at the trial
court kind of puts brakes to the ed's functioning. The
trial court says, look, you're a standalone offense in the
sense that the predicator offense can the trial can happen
at its own pace. But the ED can go on
(17:16):
with its own trial, right, But that doesn't mean that
you bring in a case in the complete absence of
a predicat offense. So which means let's say there is
a corruption charge, right, the corruption charge can take say
snail's pace, and it's going on. CBI hasnt file chargers.
The ED, on the other hand, doesn't have to wait
for the CBI. It can go ahead and you know
file its chargers. Attached properties do its own thing. I
(17:39):
mean till Ultimately the predicator offense is decided, it doesn't
stop ED.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
But on the other hand, let's say there is no corruption.
Speaker 6 (17:46):
Charge and the ED on its own brings the money
laundering offense, that's not permissable. So this is a basic
principle on how the enforcement Directorate functions, which this trial
court reiterated because in twenty fourteen, when Swami brought this
complaint to the ED, he also wrote to the CBI, right,
but the CBI did not take action, which means there
(18:07):
is no FIR as.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
A predicate offense.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
There is some case with regard to the Income Tax Department,
but income tax doesn't fall under.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
The category which triggers the.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
ED to act, right because income tax is not really
a criminal offense in that case, so that's tax evasion,
which is different.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Income Tax Department is still looking into it.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
But without a CBI FIR, at least the ED could
not have gone ahead and filed a charge sheet, is
what the trial court says.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Okay, So the absence of a predictor offense was one
reason that the court took this decision. What other reasons
did it cite?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
So the court of course here says, look, there has
to be an fir at the least right, there's no
fir by the CBI. So what is the basis on
which the ED was triggered? So to which the ED
actually argued that in twenty fifteen, there was a magistrate
who summoned Raandhi and Sona Gandhi to court and that
summoning order itself, summoning is basically for them to come
(19:06):
and up here in court, right, and that summoning order
is enough for them to take cognizance. The Court said no,
there necessarily has to be an fir right, So that's
where the first part is. Second aspect, which the court
actually relies upon is the fact that it's a completely
private complaint. The EDES case was entirely built on the
(19:26):
basis of this complaint by Supermanium Swami.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Whereas the PMLA.
Speaker 6 (19:30):
Act, which is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it
contemplates complaints by an investigating officer from a law enforcement
agency and not a public person right, so it can't
entirely be built on the basis of Swami's complaint. So
these are the two reasons the court gave for rejecting
the Edes charge sheet.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And this is a pretty big move because that means.
Speaker 6 (19:51):
The EDES hands are tied as far as this Swami's
case is concerned.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
And earlier you had mentioned you know that the CBI
had refused to take this case up. Do we know
the reason behind that?
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Essentially, for the CBI to intervene in a case of corruption,
it has to involve a a public servant and to
some quid proko. Right there necessarily has to be you
did this and then you got this for that. Right,
this direct chain and this quid proco establishment is essential
for a case of corruption. So in this case, given
(20:26):
that Young Indian is a not for profit company, the
Gandhi's argument has been we never got anything because even
if Young Indian got those rights, we can't take money
out of Young Indian, So there was really no money
exchange to us, like we didn't actually take some money home. Right,
This is what abeshekman Usingwi has been arguing. This on
behalf of the gandhes in god. So perhaps that's the
(20:47):
reason that CBI thought they could not build a case
of corruption against the gandhis But of course it's not
like the CBA has given reasons.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
And so considering this and the fact that the income
tax case is a separate thing altogether. Where do we
see this case go from here?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
So in some sense the er perhaps envisatura situation they
visualize or they saw the cases going in the other direction.
So an officer of the Enforcement Directorate actually file a
complaint with the DLI Police's Economic Offenses Wing just in November,
and this FIR is still pending.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
So this is.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Perhaps to create another window or an opportunity for a
money laundering probe. Right, But again the basis of that
complaint is also this summoning order which the court refused
to take note of.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
So we'll have to see how that plays out.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
But for now the ED has another small window to
still go after and build a case against the Gandhi's.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
And in the end we talk about the suspension of
a senior professor over a question in a semester examination.
Jamia and Milia Islamia has suspended a senior professor from
its Department of Social Work and initiated disciplinary proceedings after
the complaints were raised about a question set in an
undergraduate and semester examination. As reported by the Indian Expresses
(22:07):
with his Sha Kuntamala, the question appeared in the BA
Honor Social Work Semester one examination held on Sunday. In
a paper titled Social Problems in India. It asked students
to discuss the atrocities against Muslim minorities in India, giving
suitable example. According to the university, the paper was set
by Professor Varindra bala Ji Sahari, a faculty member with
(22:31):
over two decades of teaching and research experience. In an
official order issued by the Office of the Registrar on Tuesday,
JAMIYA said it had received complaints regarding the content of
the examination paper, citing what it described as negligence and
carelessness on the part of the professor. The order stated
that the compete and authority had taken a serious view
(22:51):
of the matter. Professor Sahara was placed under suspension with
immediate effect, pending an inquiry by the committee constituted to
examine the I Kuntumila notes that the order also stated
that an a fire would be filed as per rules
during the suspension period. Professor Sahari's headquarters have been fixed
at New Delhi and he has been directed not to
(23:13):
leave the city without prior permission from the authorities. The
university said the suspension would remain in force until the
inquiry committee reached a conclusion. Jamiya's Department of Social Work
is recognized by the University Grants Commission as a center
of advanced study. Professor Shaharre's academic profile, available on the
university's website, lists his areas of interest as rural and
(23:36):
urban community development, dult than tribal studies, social exclusion and inclusion,
and education and social development. His research and publications have
addressed issues such as social exclusion, violence against marginalized groups,
migrant workers, and human rights. Kuntumila further reports that following
the suspension, a student group, the Fraternity Movement at Jameya
(23:58):
Milia Islamia, issued as demanding that the decision be revoked.
The group said the question raised issues faced by the
Muslim minority and accused the university administration of prioritizing disciplinearty
action over academic freedom. It also criticized the move to
file an fir against the professor. University has not publicly
commented further on the substance of the complaints or the
(24:21):
timeline for the inquiry. Professor Shahara did not respond to
requests for a comment either you were listening to Three
Things by the Indian Express. Today's show was edited and
mixed by Sesh Pavar and produced by Shishang Hagev and
me Ichasharma. If you like the show, do subscribe to
us wherever you get your podcast. You can also recommend
(24:43):
it to someone you think may like it, with a
friend or in your family. This is the best way
for people to get to know about us. You can
also tweet us at Express podcast or write to us
at podcast at Indian Express dot com
In this episode, we talk about a key quote order
in the National Herald case that has stalled the ed
prosecution against the Gandhes. We also talk about a university
professor's suspension over an exam question and the larger debate
it has sparked about academic freedom. But first we talk
about how the government is asking online platforms to take
(00:23):
down specific content and what that means for the freedom
of speech online. Hi, I'm Micha Sharma and you're listening
to three Things the Indian Express New Show. Over the
past year and a half, India has seen a new
(00:45):
form of digital enforcement take shape, where the state can
directly approach online platforms order content to be removed, often
within ours and in some cases do so without judicial oversight.
And at the center of this ecosystem the Sayuk Portal,
which was formally rolled out in the latter half of
twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Four, so the Sayouq Portal.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
It's an initiative under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
That's the Indian Expresses Sohnihosh.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
It was piloted and then launched in the latter half
of twenty twenty four. And the portal what it aims
to do is basically expedite the process of sending notices
to IT intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agencies
under provisions of the IT Act, and the purpose of
(01:38):
sending such notices, as outlined for the portal is basically
to facilitate removal or disabling of access to any information, data, etc.
With the prime focus here being criminal activities. So any post,
any sort of communication that is being undertaken between different
(02:01):
platforms or in the digital sphere, if it's unlawful, if
it's a criminal act, say for example, you're orchestrating or
kidnapping over I don't know WhatsApp.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So that is where the portal comes into play.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
It issues a notice to say, for example, WhatsApp that
a criminal activity is going on, you have two disable access,
she says.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
The CEO Portal is actually in part to issue these notices,
and this section seventy nine to three B of the
IT Act, which is also referred to as the Safe
Harbor Provision.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
The Safe Harbor Provision basically says that if the government
or any law enforcement agency is flagging a content to
be unlawful or criminal, you have to first take it down,
and only after you take it down. Can you raise
any grievance or appeal If you, as a platform think
that what the alleged offense was is not being made out,
(03:00):
you are of a different opinion. The first step is
you have to first take down and only after that
you can raise those issues.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
So he he tells us that since last year, the
Indian Cybercrank Coordination Center, the division overseeing SAYOG, has told
quotes that it is in the process of integrating the
APIs of around eleven hundred digital entities into this system.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So this includes your Internet service providers, your social media intermediaries,
telecom network providers, even crypto exchanges, etc. And as for
the government part of the portal, it would also onboard
your law enforcement agency. So for example, the idea is
(03:46):
to have every police station, every law enforcement agency office
on this portal. Have a person, for example, sitting at
your local thana, he or she or they they find
something objectionable on the web, they use this portal, they
immediately raise the request of takedown. And because the intermediaries
(04:11):
their API is integrated, what it essentially does is it
cuts off any human interaction from the intermediary side and
the pullers basically can just raise an issue and take
down the content directly, so in a way you are
cutting out any judicial overview.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
At the first instance at least.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
She says that most major platforms have already been on broaded,
with the exception of x formerly known as Twitter. According
to records reviewed by The Indian Express, since March twenty
twenty four, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued ninety
one takedown notices to XCORD, flagging more than eleven hundred
URLs for removal.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
So XCORT was issued no notices between March twenty twenty
four until what November this year? At least the data
compilation we had it had those notices, and all these
notices were issued under ITACH section seventy nine three B.
And although these were not issued through the SAYOG portal,
(05:20):
to be very clear, these notices are using the same
legal provision that SAYOK portal uses, which is again ITACH
section seventy nine three B. So effectively, the notices we
are going to discuss it can be pretty much a
representative reference or to what we may see if and
(05:42):
when XCORT on boards SAYOG, and what those kind of
orders would look like once they're on board SAYOK that is,
if they're ordered.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
To do so.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
And what's particularly striking is not just the volume of
these notices, but the reason cited most frequently. Nearly half
of these notices cited disturbing public order as the primary reason.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
So essentially, anything and everything.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
If we look at the entire compilation of the ninety
one notices, pretty much everything and anything is a public
order threat that they're citing. A lot of these notices
are also using serious sections like say IPC one fifty
three eight, which is basically stoking communal tensions. So end
(06:34):
of the day, pretty much all the notices have this
element because if we really look at a macro view, yes,
everything is a potential threat to public order, it's quite
vague in those terms. Now, coming to the content of
such notices, so a lot of the notices that were
asked to be taked down, a lot of them the
(06:57):
Home Ministry claims that it contains doctored content, doctored video,
false statements, fake news, so these are very commonly used.
The Ministry pretty much flagged a lot of these aspects.
Some of these content that they asked take down for
it also included, say, use of obscene words or acts
(07:22):
a lot of the content also included posts by opposition
party affiliated handles, say from a congress sharkened Twitter handle
post or some TMC leaders post.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So we do see a combination. But what are striking
here is the fact.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That a lot of these posts that were asked to
be taken down it involved the opposition parties.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
We are not seeing the same kind of proactivity.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Say in asking for takedown miners looking at the party affiliation,
which is what an ideal platform should be doing, or
an ideal provision of the law be used as uniformly.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
That is what the expectation would be.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And what's interesting is that only fourteen of the ninety
one notices alleged clearly identifiable criminal activity such as betting,
fraud and financial scams.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
However, what really stood out for me was the fact
that there was only one one out of ninety one
notices which flagged child sexual abuse material. And for research,
I just had to type pond on the search bar
(08:41):
of X, and you are flooded with material.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
I do not see how there could have been only one.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Notice out of ninety one flagging this kind of material,
which I mean child trafficking, human trafficking or pornographic content.
These curving these activities in the digital sphere has also
been a point of emphasis for Delhi High Court because
essentially the portal and its function it actually took form
(09:13):
because Delhi High Court was pursuing a case pertaining to
a hebeous corpus of a nineteen year old boy who
remains missing till this day. So the High Court at
the time had basically High Coat's focus was that there
should not be any conflict between the law enforcement agencies
(09:34):
and the social intermediaries when it comes to crimes like
these or when it comes to tracking down missing persons,
which are essential law enforcement activities.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Now, among the notices which The Indian Express reviewed were
also take down orders for alleged manipulated or AI generated
content targeting the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, the
Finance Minister, and even posts by the opposition. But Sony
tells us that in several takedown cases Xcorp pushed back.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
X has pretty much termed this as a censorship portal
before the Karnatuck High Coat, where it is basically challenging
the constitutional legality of firstly the content blocking orders that
the government is issuing under seventy nine to three B,
and also the fact that sayog portal in itself, which
(10:29):
uses the same provision, is unconstitutional. And one of their
key contention is see as a government body or a
law enforcement agency, there is already a provision under that
which is your section sixty nine A.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
And the best part about that.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Is it comes with certain levels of checks and balances. So,
for example, under section sixty nine A, the government is
empowered to issue blocking or takes down orders, but it
is not completely left to the discretion of government to
define what an alleged offense is being made out to be.
(11:09):
Sixty nine A clearly says that the whatever content you're
flagging for takedown, it should meet the benchmark of offenses
pertaining to or affecting national security and public orders. So
there's a very clear guideline in terms of the share
single judgment here. Those fetters are gone for the government.
(11:31):
So even assuming in good faith that the government is
flagging content which is genuinely violative of the law fare.
But why is government the sole decider of this aspect?
Before you can approach for any sort of legal remedies,
there has to be any system has to work within
(11:52):
checks and balances, and that is something that X has
been continuously pushing back on because.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Technically all the social.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Media intermediaries have accepted this system of seyok portal and
being asked to take down content. X is the only
one which has not accepted this proposition, putting up a
legal fight.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
So yeah, and next we turned to the National Herald case.
For the past few years, the Enforcement Directorate has been
investigating members of the Gandhi family along with several office
bearers of the Congress Party, who have been accused of
illegally acquiring assets worth two thousand kro rupees belonging to
(12:38):
Associated Journals Limited, the former publisher of the National Herald newspaper.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
But earlier this week, a.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Deli court declined to take cognizance of the Edies prosecution complaint,
effectively putting the case on hold against Sonia and Rahul
Gandhi along with five others named in the matter. To
understand why the court took this step and what that
means for the future of the case my grief, Shashang
Phargav spoke to The Indian Express's National Legal editor, Apurva wish.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Fornath breakdown the EDES case for us. How is the
EDS saying that the gandhis and these Congress office bearers
acquired these assets worth two thousand.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
So we're saying two thousand krols because Associate Journals Limited,
this public unlisted company which publishes or used to publish
this newspaper called National Herald, that company has assets.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Worth two thousand cross is the ADES claim. Right.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
So Associated Journals was running into losses and at some
point the Congress Party, the AICC had loaned ninety crores
to AJL and this loan was of course not repaid
for a very long period of time. Subsequently, this other
company called Young Indian and this is a private not
for profit company what we call a Section twenty five
(13:57):
company under the Company's Act, which means even when they profits,
you can't like book them out of the company.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Right.
Speaker 6 (14:03):
So, this Young Indian company bought the rights to recover
this loan that was given to AHL by the Congress Party,
which means they bought this from this right from the
Congress Party. So but they bought it for a price
of just fifty lakh rupees. Right, So a ninety crowd
loan was essentially bought over by this company for just
(14:24):
fifty laks and this company about seventy six percent of
shares are held by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The
EDS case is basically this that the AGL converted this
outstanding loan of ninety crores into equity shares in favor
of Young Indian and therefore it defrauded the shareholders of
(14:44):
AHL as well as you know the public donors to
the Congress Party. So the Congress Party of course gets
its money from public contributions, right like any other political party.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
So this is the EDS case.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
And can you tell us how this case first came
to light and who initially filed the complaint.
Speaker 6 (15:02):
So this case was first brought about by BJP leaders
Superman and Swami. So in ED language, this is what
we call a private complaint, which means it's not an
agency which flagged it to the ED. And usually it
is you know, say the CBI or the NIA when
they are investigating a certain crime, so they would flag
it to the ED and then ED starts investigating that
(15:24):
money laundering charge.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Right, So in this case, it wasn't an agency.
Speaker 6 (15:28):
But these allegations were made by Superman Swami in a
private complaint to the d and this complaint was made
by Swami in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
In April this year, the.
Speaker 6 (15:37):
ED finally filed a prosecution complaint, which is basically like
filing a charge sheet in any normal crime.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Right, And what is the reason that this Deli code
then refused to take cognizance of this matter? Why why
did you do that?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (15:51):
So that is essentially what is linked to the larger
story of how the ED has been functioning. And this
is something that we've been talking for the last couple
of years, right that the Enforcement Directorate has time and
again insisted that money laundering can be a standalone offense,
which means even without a predicate or a precursor offense.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
And here can you explain what exactly a predicate offense is?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
So what is money laundering?
Speaker 6 (16:17):
Money laundering is basically where you use the proceeds of
a crime.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Right.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
Suppose in a dakoite you got fifty lakh rupees which
is what you stole, and with that fifty lakh rupees
you went and waughtterhouse.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
So that is money laundering. Right.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
You showed the proceeds of crime as your own money.
And that's where the ED will come in, say attached
to property and say, look, these are proceeds of crime
and you cannot be using this. But for the ED
to do that, you have to have first committed dakoity, right,
the actual offense from which the money laundering charge flows.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
That is called a predicate offense.
Speaker 6 (16:53):
So the EDA has been saying, even if we don't
have a predicate offense, we can always investigate money laundering
as a standalone offense. Here is where at the trial
court kind of puts brakes to the ed's functioning. The
trial court says, look, you're a standalone offense in the
sense that the predicator offense can the trial can happen
at its own pace. But the ED can go on
(17:16):
with its own trial, right, But that doesn't mean that
you bring in a case in the complete absence of
a predicat offense. So which means let's say there is
a corruption charge, right, the corruption charge can take say
snail's pace, and it's going on. CBI hasnt file chargers.
The ED, on the other hand, doesn't have to wait
for the CBI. It can go ahead and you know
file its chargers. Attached properties do its own thing. I
(17:39):
mean till Ultimately the predicator offense is decided, it doesn't
stop ED.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
But on the other hand, let's say there is no corruption.
Speaker 6 (17:46):
Charge and the ED on its own brings the money
laundering offense, that's not permissable. So this is a basic
principle on how the enforcement Directorate functions, which this trial
court reiterated because in twenty fourteen, when Swami brought this
complaint to the ED, he also wrote to the CBI, right,
but the CBI did not take action, which means there
(18:07):
is no FIR as.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
A predicate offense.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
There is some case with regard to the Income Tax Department,
but income tax doesn't fall under.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
The category which triggers the.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
ED to act, right because income tax is not really
a criminal offense in that case, so that's tax evasion,
which is different.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Income Tax Department is still looking into it.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
But without a CBI FIR, at least the ED could
not have gone ahead and filed a charge sheet, is
what the trial court says.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Okay, So the absence of a predictor offense was one
reason that the court took this decision. What other reasons
did it cite?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
So the court of course here says, look, there has
to be an fir at the least right, there's no
fir by the CBI. So what is the basis on
which the ED was triggered? So to which the ED
actually argued that in twenty fifteen, there was a magistrate
who summoned Raandhi and Sona Gandhi to court and that
summoning order itself, summoning is basically for them to come
(19:06):
and up here in court, right, and that summoning order
is enough for them to take cognizance. The Court said no,
there necessarily has to be an fir right, So that's
where the first part is. Second aspect, which the court
actually relies upon is the fact that it's a completely
private complaint. The EDES case was entirely built on the
(19:26):
basis of this complaint by Supermanium Swami.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Whereas the PMLA.
Speaker 6 (19:30):
Act, which is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it
contemplates complaints by an investigating officer from a law enforcement
agency and not a public person right, so it can't
entirely be built on the basis of Swami's complaint. So
these are the two reasons the court gave for rejecting
the Edes charge sheet.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And this is a pretty big move because that means.
Speaker 6 (19:51):
The EDES hands are tied as far as this Swami's
case is concerned.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
And earlier you had mentioned you know that the CBI
had refused to take this case up. Do we know
the reason behind that?
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Essentially, for the CBI to intervene in a case of corruption,
it has to involve a a public servant and to
some quid proko. Right there necessarily has to be you
did this and then you got this for that. Right,
this direct chain and this quid proco establishment is essential
for a case of corruption. So in this case, given
(20:26):
that Young Indian is a not for profit company, the
Gandhi's argument has been we never got anything because even
if Young Indian got those rights, we can't take money
out of Young Indian, So there was really no money
exchange to us, like we didn't actually take some money home. Right,
This is what abeshekman Usingwi has been arguing. This on
behalf of the gandhes in god. So perhaps that's the
(20:47):
reason that CBI thought they could not build a case
of corruption against the gandhis But of course it's not
like the CBA has given reasons.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
And so considering this and the fact that the income
tax case is a separate thing altogether. Where do we
see this case go from here?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
So in some sense the er perhaps envisatura situation they
visualize or they saw the cases going in the other direction.
So an officer of the Enforcement Directorate actually file a
complaint with the DLI Police's Economic Offenses Wing just in November,
and this FIR is still pending.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
So this is.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Perhaps to create another window or an opportunity for a
money laundering probe. Right, But again the basis of that
complaint is also this summoning order which the court refused
to take note of.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
So we'll have to see how that plays out.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
But for now the ED has another small window to
still go after and build a case against the Gandhi's.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
And in the end we talk about the suspension of
a senior professor over a question in a semester examination.
Jamia and Milia Islamia has suspended a senior professor from
its Department of Social Work and initiated disciplinary proceedings after
the complaints were raised about a question set in an
undergraduate and semester examination. As reported by the Indian Expresses
(22:07):
with his Sha Kuntamala, the question appeared in the BA
Honor Social Work Semester one examination held on Sunday. In
a paper titled Social Problems in India. It asked students
to discuss the atrocities against Muslim minorities in India, giving
suitable example. According to the university, the paper was set
by Professor Varindra bala Ji Sahari, a faculty member with
(22:31):
over two decades of teaching and research experience. In an
official order issued by the Office of the Registrar on Tuesday,
JAMIYA said it had received complaints regarding the content of
the examination paper, citing what it described as negligence and
carelessness on the part of the professor. The order stated
that the compete and authority had taken a serious view
(22:51):
of the matter. Professor Sahara was placed under suspension with
immediate effect, pending an inquiry by the committee constituted to
examine the I Kuntumila notes that the order also stated
that an a fire would be filed as per rules
during the suspension period. Professor Sahari's headquarters have been fixed
at New Delhi and he has been directed not to
(23:13):
leave the city without prior permission from the authorities. The
university said the suspension would remain in force until the
inquiry committee reached a conclusion. Jamiya's Department of Social Work
is recognized by the University Grants Commission as a center
of advanced study. Professor Shaharre's academic profile, available on the
university's website, lists his areas of interest as rural and
(23:36):
urban community development, dult than tribal studies, social exclusion and inclusion,
and education and social development. His research and publications have
addressed issues such as social exclusion, violence against marginalized groups,
migrant workers, and human rights. Kuntumila further reports that following
the suspension, a student group, the Fraternity Movement at Jameya
(23:58):
Milia Islamia, issued as demanding that the decision be revoked.
The group said the question raised issues faced by the
Muslim minority and accused the university administration of prioritizing disciplinearty
action over academic freedom. It also criticized the move to
file an fir against the professor. University has not publicly
commented further on the substance of the complaints or the
(24:21):
timeline for the inquiry. Professor Shahara did not respond to
requests for a comment either you were listening to Three
Things by the Indian Express. Today's show was edited and
mixed by Sesh Pavar and produced by Shishang Hagev and
me Ichasharma. If you like the show, do subscribe to
us wherever you get your podcast. You can also recommend
(24:43):
it to someone you think may like it, with a
friend or in your family. This is the best way
for people to get to know about us. You can
also tweet us at Express podcast or write to us
at podcast at Indian Express dot com
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.