WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOUTED THE NORMS OF ARRESTING A

JUDICIAL OFFICER?

The state has not flouted any norms in regard to the arrest of a judicial order..It is humbly submitted
before this honourable court that incitement among public as regards to violation of public peace is
one of the most important aspect to attract legal consequences.Justice Amar Shergill by posting his
views on the social which has led to the trigger in the public for the release of the sequoia.

INCITMENT DEFINED

To arouse; stir up; instigate; sec in motion; as, to “incite” a riot. this implies that the Justice Amar
shergill has incited the public by sharing his views in the public. Despite he does not know or must
be knowing about the after effects of the sharing of the post but still it amounts to incitement at
large.

In the case of Kedarnath v state of Bihar it was held by the court thatIn Kedar Nath Singh’s Case, 5
judges of the Supreme Court – a Constitution bench – made it clear that allegedly seditious speech
and expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to ‘violence’, or ‘public
disorder’.

• It is humbly submitted before the court that post posted by the justice has led to the
incitement in the people of the nation for the release of the person so the police has not flouted any
norms for the arrest of the Judicial Officer.

The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

Parliament passed The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 to provide certain more protections to
Judges and Magistrates in addition to what was already available to them under The Judicial
Officers’ Protection Act, 1850. Certain important provisions contained under the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985 are as under---

“Sec. 3--- Additional Protection to Judges--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), no Court shall entertain
or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act,
thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central
Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other
authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil,
criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.”

It is humbly submitted that since the sub section 2 of section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1895
provides that Sub section 1 doesn’t debar the central government, state government, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court or the hon’ble high court regarding the arrest of the judicial officer who is not acting
in the discharge of his official or judicial duty to function.

FREEDOM OF PRESS

ARTICLE 19[!] which says the under the Article 19[1] where their is the freedom of speech and
expression Freedom of press is here by stated in the above article . In the case ofKeeping this view
in mind Venkataramiah, J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India has stated:

“In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has
now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a
large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern
communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to
advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate
[Government] cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views
having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to
Governments and other authorities.”

I. It is humbly submitted before the court that in this case kaki news channel has exercised his
freedom of pride by publishing the letter and does not want to disrespect anyone.
DEFAMATORY WORDS USED

• According to black law dictionary defamation means, in which someone tells one or more
persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.

• It is humbly submitted before the case that GOONDAS word used by the Justice clearly
shows that it was defamatory to the reputation of the central government and the state government.
He further said that earlier they were looted and jailed by the white Goondas of Britain and now of
the brown black. These words are considered as defamatory.

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India upheld constitutional validity of defamation laws and ruling
that they are not in conflict with the right of speech. Apex court also said that one is bound to
tolerate criticism, dissent and discordance but not expected to tolerate defamatory attack.

DEATH

It is humbly submitted before the court that that sure to the support of the sequia one of the fellow
prisoners died, and tat was not shown to the media which implies that due to the hunger strike
which was curtailed by the sequia has led him to the death the person. And their is wrong allegation
the media was politics to not show the advertisement.

RIGHT TO FORGOTTEN

The internet has a continual memory that stores everything which was ever uploaded on it. The
advanced technology and new search algorithms generates information in seconds that was ever
uploaded and such information can be shared by Whatsapp, Email, Facebook, etc. by just clicking
on the share button. Wherefore, to protect one's privacy a need has been felt that any information
which is no longer relevant should be removed from the public domain. The Right to be Forgotten
allows an individual to request for the removal of his/her personal information from an online
database after a period of time or such information is no longer relevant. The issue of Right to be
Forgotten revolves around the question that whether an individual should be granted a right to
request for deletion of data generated from the list of results promoted by search engines, websites,
social networks, blogs, etc.
EU Data Protection Law

The Right to be Forgotten is a remedy available under data protection law, enabling a data subject
to obtain from the data controller the erasure of links to data which the data subject regards as
prejudicial to him or her. It is a right which, in the European Union, derives from the 1995 Data
Protection Directive. In the case of Google Spain and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española De
Protección De Datos and Mario Costeja González the Court of Justice of the European Union on
May 3, 2014 recognized the Right to be Forgotten and explained its scope. In 2010, a Spanish
citizen Mario Costeja González lodged a complaint against a Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia
Editions SL, Agencia Española De Protección De Datos and against Google Spain and Google Inc.
His grievance was that an auction notice of his home which was repossessed later was still on
Google's search results, infringing his right to privacy. He argued that, as the proceedings
concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years, the links available on Google
regarding this were now totally irrelevant. Mario Costeja González requested the newspaper to
remove the information or change the pages so that his personal information no longer appeared. He
also requested Google Spain to remove his personal data, so that it no longer appeared in the
Google search results.

The Court held that an internet search engine operator is responsible for processing data which
appears on the web pages published by third parties. For example if a search made on a person's
name, internet search engine operator will generate a list of results displaying links to web page
which contains information on the person in question. If a person is aggrieved by such information
then they may directly approach the operator and, where the operator does not grant his request,
bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the
removal of that link from the list of results.

In the case Gujarat High Court in Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Petitioner sought remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the publication
of a judgment by Indian Kanoon and same was shown by Google in its search results, which was a
'non-reportable judgment'. The Petitioner claimed that such an act violated Article 21.

The Petitioner contended that Google and Indian Kanoon had no authority to publish a
nonreportable judgment and it had adversely affected his personal and professional life. He also
contended that because of such publication, the judgment was freely available on the internet and
the same was against the classification made by the Court.

The Court observed that "The judgment in appeal is part of the proceedings and the said judgment is
pronounced by this Court and therefore, merely publishing on the website would not amount to
same being reported as the word "reportable" used for judgment is in relation to it being reported in
law reporter."

In the Court's opinion, there was no legal basis to order such removal and the presence of the
judgment on the Internet did not violate the petitioner's rights under Article 21.

There is no provision with regard to the Right to be Forgotten in India. The Karnataka High Court,
Kerala High Court and Gujarat High Court delivered judgments on separate pleas to have particular
judgments removed from online portal and search engine results. The Gujarat High Court dismissed
the petition, stating that there was no legal basis to seek removal of a judgment from the Internet,
After this judgements, it will be interesting to see how the right to be forgotten will be molded by
the Delhi High Court. It is pertinent to note that the current petitions before the Court are restricted
to cases reported on online databases. It will be interesting to see how the emerging concept will
continue to develop in the future.

• It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that after referring the above case we can
say that for that the Kiki news channel has not done any such the violation of right of forgotten
because as stated by the above judgements that their is no law on such right, it is still to be
developed in India as referred in the above judgements that India did not recognise the right to be
forgotten as the European Union is recognising because the condition of both the conditions were
different from each other so on the basis on which the European countries recognise this law it cant
be recognised in India.