For someone who is just starting to read up on public policies, the article on differences between state, government, nation as well as sedition, blasphemy and defamation was an informative read. Overall I found the entire article highly interesting.
There was a factual inaccuracy, imo. Safoora wasn't denied bail due to dissonance in interpretation. The charges were different. She was charged under UAPA as well and Disha Ravi under IPC only. I don't think we can blame that on the Judge. UAPA bail hearing is, in short, a trial only.
thanks. You're right that the charges were under different codes. That, however, was not the focus of my argument. What I said was that the judge referred to the same "Kedar Nath" case and said this: "even if no direct violence is attributable to the applicant, she cannot shy away from the liability under the provisions of the said Act. When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far.." And that ".. mere violence is not the gravamen of charge u/s 2(o) of UAPA."
Contrast this with the order's focus on a lack of connection with violence against the State in the Disha Ravi case.
This differing interpretation is what I was referring to. The point is not to blame the judge but the ambiguous wording of the act.
For someone who is just starting to read up on public policies, the article on differences between state, government, nation as well as sedition, blasphemy and defamation was an informative read. Overall I found the entire article highly interesting.
I read an IMF working paper recently on interest-growth differential, take a look https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2020/03/13/r-minus-g-negative-Can-We-Sleep-More-Soundly-49068
There was a factual inaccuracy, imo. Safoora wasn't denied bail due to dissonance in interpretation. The charges were different. She was charged under UAPA as well and Disha Ravi under IPC only. I don't think we can blame that on the Judge. UAPA bail hearing is, in short, a trial only.
thanks. You're right that the charges were under different codes. That, however, was not the focus of my argument. What I said was that the judge referred to the same "Kedar Nath" case and said this: "even if no direct violence is attributable to the applicant, she cannot shy away from the liability under the provisions of the said Act. When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far.." And that ".. mere violence is not the gravamen of charge u/s 2(o) of UAPA."
Contrast this with the order's focus on a lack of connection with violence against the State in the Disha Ravi case.
This differing interpretation is what I was referring to. The point is not to blame the judge but the ambiguous wording of the act.
For more, read: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-375920.pdf & https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/safoora-zargar-and-disha-ravi-a-tale-of-two-bail-orders/