Law
Plagiarism, cyber-stalking and crime
I was pointed to this post via Neha’s blog. To say I was appalled would be the understatement of the century. To steal content is one thing. That, in itself, is condemnable because it amounts to, as Inji Pennu puts it, daylight robbery. But, to threaten bodily harm and heap abuse on a blogger because she dared to complain about it, is quite another. While the first is a violation of intellectual property, the second is criminal intimidation. How exactly can we, as bloggers, netizens, or even common people take such abuse lying down?
There are several initiatives out there on the Web to counter this kind of cyber-theft. The least we can do is to support the cause, write about it, and make as much noise as possible. Bloggers like Inji Pennu deserve all the support they can get. It is not easy to handle intimidation and it is our duty, as fellow bloggers to give support, albeit moral. These two sites are dedicated to fighting copyright violations. Check them out for further information.
Legal System and criticism
Read this excellent op-ed in The Hindu by V R Krishna Iyer. I am glad someone is questioning what the Supreme Court says. In a recent pronouncement, the Chief Justice of India said that judges were “constitutional authorities” and not public servants, and therefore not covered by the Right to Information Act. In an excellent retort, Iyer explains that the difference between “constitutional authority” and public servant is merely semantic. He argues that constitutional authorities are, in fact, a higher category of pubic servant and are therefore more accountable for their actions. If what Iyer says is true, then why is criticism of the courts or legal procedure considered contempt of court? Must the Supreme Court not be subject to the very laws they seek to uphold? As Iyer puts it,
“The Indian judiciary must accept Frankfurter, that frank and superlative U.S. Judge who wrote: “Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions.”
In a recent order on the defamation cases against Tamil actress Khushboo, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the 29 cases against her on the grounds that she had expressed not-so-flattering opinions against the judiciary, and that she had no reason to be aggrieved. Excuse me, but I thought I lived in a democracy? A person does not enjoy her fundamental right to constitutional remedy because she dared to say something against the courts, which are responsible for providing that remedy? In a democracy, I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression. Nobody can take that away from me. The courts were, until now, the only neutral and non-partisan forum for justice. If the courts put themselves above the law, how can we trust them to protect the rights of normal people like you and me?
To its credit, India’s legal system has managed to remain free from external influences for over 60 years. We cannot afford to let that change. Judges will only be more respected if they agree to subject themselves to the laws they are appointed to uphold. Judges are subject to law, not above it.