NGOs’ role as fifth estate under sharp focus
Yogesh Rajput | January 30, 2015
The high-handedness of the government, often coming to light when it restricts movement, speech or action of the common man as suited by subjectivity, now finds a serious challenge in holding a firm ground. The spoilsport for the government has off late been the judiciary, which has (much to the public’s delight) involuntarily been performing the role of a big brother.
The Delhi high court while hearing the plea of Priya Pillai, a human rights activist, issued notices to various government bodies asking them to explain the grounds on which she was recently offloaded from a London-bound flight at Delhi airport. Pillai, a campaigner with Greenpeace, was scheduled to visit the UK to make a presentation before British MPs on alleged human rights violation in Mahan, Madhya Pradesh.
The government’s act, which would have well surprised the activist, should however not be considered as coming out of the blue as its instigations had been forming a concrete shape for quite some time. In the much-talked about report of the Intelligence Bureau that came out last year accusing several foreign-funded NGOs (including Greenpeace) of stalling important government projects and “threatening national economic security”, the centre in bold letters had expressed its discomfort with the consistent ‘screech in the ear’ criticism thrown towards it from the NGOs - a collective which with its loud voice, quietly works to form the unnoticed fifth estate.
Unlike journalists, NGOs have never been much feared by the government, not much attention has been given to what opinion they make of the government and its activities. It has only been in the recent past that the government now sees these pressure groups as a potential threat in exposing its shortcomings …ummm… national economic security.
The central government is already pushing to attain greater influence for ruling in matters of freedom of expression after it recently supported the validity of Section 66-A of the IT Act in front of the supreme court (the section has been criticised by many of being unconstitutional and violating one’s freedom of speech). Under such circumstances, the judiciary is all the more expected and required to draw a more legible line separating expressions that pose threat to national security and those in national interest.
History could have repeated itself as a farce, but in the triple talaq case today, there has been no replay. A historic blunder has been undone, though it has taken three decades. The supreme court has once again taken a stance in favour of individual freedom and against fundamentalism &nda
The derailment of Puri-Haridwar Kalinga Utkal express at Khatauli has once again raised serious questions on the railways’ safety claims. At least 21 people were killed and many were injured. The derailments over a period of a few months are giving sleepless nights to the top railway.
The BJP as well as the Congress welcomed the supreme court judgment that bars instant triple talaq for a period of six months and also seeks a legislation on it. BJP chief Amit Shah said that he welcomes this on behalf of the party and added “it’s not about anyo
Five judges from five different faiths deliberated upon and decided that instant triple talaq is to be struck down for a period of six months and the government should bring a legislation over it. The supreme court bench was headed by chief justice of India J S Khehar, who
Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC) and Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) did not conduct appropriate due diligence during credit appraisal in power generation projects and in the process assumed higher risks on the loan accounts, noted the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in a rep
Prime minister Narendra Modi described as “historic” the supreme court judgment that struck down triple talaq for a period of six months. “Judgment of the Hon`ble SC on Triple Talaq is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure