Follow nationalizer on

RTI query on PMO blocking tweeple

Media preview


Happened to come across some news reports that the Former Prime minister on twitter blocked many twitter users. I would like you to provide details on the following

1. How many twitter users were blocked by PMO official twitter handle
2. Who was/were in charge of operating PMO twitter handle till May 26,2014?
3. Was PMO approval sought before blocking twitter users
4. Any reasons cited for blocking twitter users
5. How many were unblocked after May 26, 2014, after new PM took charge of PMO.
6. Who is in charge of operating PMO twitter handle since May 26, 2014.

The open letter which I sent to Narendra Modi in 2011

I wrote this open letter in 2011, but was published in another blog

Dear Modiji,
Let me introduce myself , I am Ashok, am not from Gujarat, nor I know Gujarati language, have no close friends from your state, I have never visited the state too. Then you might wonder, why I should write a letter to you, I will explain in a few words. Narendra Modi, the name first striked my head, after you won the Gujarat elections of 2002 . Before that I knew only about one Narendra, who latter became world famous as Swami Vivekananda. But the 2002 election results, was celebrated here also by some organisations in Sangh Pariwar, and this was the first time, I heard about a second Narendra, and that was you..
The earthquake and riots destroyed everything Gujarat had; the loss of lives during the earthquake was as much tragic as the burning of Karsevaks in Godhra which triggered another quake in the form of communal riots. But what was more tragic, was the propaganda against you by some self-proclaimed secularists and Human right activist with the help of media and sponsored by the anti-nationals. But now Gujarat is one of the most prosperous and secure place in India. But some people still rant “ Ghost of Godhra haunts Modi”. They propagate blatant lies against you, most importantly two fundamental lies: 1) You quoted newton’s third law and 2) you did not condemn the post Godhra riots. I know about how you were misquoted out of context when you said “kriya Prathikriya ki chaal chal rahi hai” and I also know you have condemned the violence from any sides in those days itself. But media hides it deliberately from the common man, and unfortunately they are successful in their campaign against you in at least a few states outside Gujarat. This is the tragedy we are facing, the most successful leader of a state, who led it from a state of chaos to a disciplined and democratic state, a charismatic leader whose every words inspire patriotism in our hearts, is a victim of media and pseudo secular propaganda. Let me be frank enough when I tell you why I adore you? Why do you think a youngster like me who has never ever seen you or your state will see a messiah in you? That itself answers why you are called a Hriduy samrat. You may like that title or not, But you are that. In the past, Hindus were always blamed for every riots taking place in the country, it did not matter who started the riots and who are killed. But when riots happened in Gujarat, they were unfortunate, the secret of my adoration lies in the fact that you did not blame the Hindus for the riots, instead you absorbed all the evil effects it has created just like just like the Neelakandha Siva drank the poison for rescuing the entire world.
Today it is ten years completed since you became the CM of Gujarat. Now I hear about the enormous development you have done in Gujarat from my relatives and friends who visited your state, a few months ago. One of them was a critic of yours; I must say he was a victim of media propaganda, when he came back from Gujarat, first thing he said was “hey Ashok, your NaMo is truly great, just go and see what is he doing in Guj”. Another friend of mine, who I met in internet chats, said “there are no power cuts in Gujarat” and before I could reply him, the power was cut at my place. Last week I read in some news site that Gujarat sells power to neighboring states and thus gained crores . Another friend who visited Gujarat said “roads are simply superb”. One social activist informed me that you have adopted a policy of zero tolerance to corruption. One friend who is a Hindu activist said, conversions and Cow slaughter is strictly banned in Gujarat. After I hear all these, I came to a conclusion, either all these friends whom I know personally are Lying, or Gujarat has become a RamRajya, just what Gandhiji had dreamt of.
But inspite of all these , I request you to RESIGN from the post of Gujarat CM as soon as possible, because you can not be a PrimeMinister and a chief minister at the same time. So find some good leader of your caliber for Gujarat soon, and march with your golden chariot to Delhi, the Indraprasth. We need you as our leader,as our Samrat, at any cost. You becoming our prime minister is not only your duty but our right too. We do not want to be addressed as “Hindus,muslims,sikh,isai” any more, but we love your “Bhayiyon aur behnom”. We don’t want you to wear skull caps, to prove that you are secular, we love you in your current looks. The other Narendra I know, had said this century belongs to Bharath and I believe that those words will come true when the present Narendra sits in his throne, as the King of all men, King of our Hearts. This day, I only wish to tell you two words and it is “Thank You”, Do you still want to know why, then here is my answer “Thank you for being what you are”.

Thank you again,
Vande Mataram

My open rebuttal to Mrs Batra

Embedded image permalink


Dear mother,

I addressed you as “mother” for two reasons- one because you are of my mother’s age, and secondly because you are mother of the brave heart who sacrificed his life for each among us. I read your open letter to Narendra Modi. And I am not here to defend him, as he is the best person to defend himself.

On the onset, let me put it straightly to you that this open letter blog is ill drafted. I am sure the party strategists drafted it for you, because I do not believe that you will start a letter with a blatant lie as  the opening sentence.  You wrote “In your campaigning, you have used the name and slogan- yeh dil maange more- of my Sher beta.  People call him the Sher Shah of Kargil.“. With all respects to your son and our hero Vikram Batra, I humbly inform you that the slogan which you claims to be that of Vikram Batra is not actually his. It was coined by Anuja Chauhan for Pepsi Co. in the year 1998.

If your open letter started with a lie, then what follows are pure political statements. “Mr Modi, if you really care for the army and respect martyrs, a soldier’s family for you should be like God. If I were in your place, I would have withdrawn the BJP candidate who is running against me”. You are absolutely right when you say that soldiers family for us(not just Modi) should be like God. But have you seen any God fighting elections? Do Gods join any political party ? No. It seems that you have seen your political rivals just like a soldier sees another soldier across the border as his enemy. The elections in India is not a war between rivals, it is a celebration of democracy. If you deserve to win, people will elect you despite BJP fielding its candidate. See the BJP candidate who is fighting election as one among you and not as one against you.

The full reading of your open letter can be summed up like this “Dont use my son’s name and slogan, I have the right to use it. If you want to use it, withdraw your candidate against me”. It seems that you are using your Son’s name for political bargain. As a citizen of this country, I request you not to do this and not to allow anyone to use you and your Son’s name like they did this time.

 I apologise if I have hurt you in this reply letter. I need your blessings too. Hope you will correct yourself and never be mislead by your party members.

Thank You


Why commutation of Rajiv assassins death penalty is legally right ?


The Supreme Court has overwhelmingly depended on the case Shatrughan Chauhan  vs. Union of India  to decide the issue of commutation of death penalty of the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi, our former Prime Minister.  The SC held in Shatrughan Chauhan case that If  there is undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution due to pendency of mercy petitions or the executive as well as the constitutional authorities have failed to take note of/consider the relevant aspects, this Court is well within its powers under Article 32 to hear the grievance of the convict and commute the death sentence into life imprisonment on this ground alone however, only after satisfying that the delay was not caused at the instance of the accused himself…”.  That means the convicts only need to show that there was an undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution of death sentence due to pendency of mercy petitions.

The Apex court observed that there has been an exorbitant delay in this case of Rajiv assassins.  The mercy petitions under Article 72 of constitution were filed in 2000 and the president rejected it in 2011.  11 years to decide whether or not to give mercy? The Supreme Court observed “Exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petition renders the process of execution of death sentence arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and, therefore, inexecutable. Furthermore, such imprisonment, occasioned by inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petitions, is beyond the sentence accorded by the court and to that extent is extralegal and excessive. Therefore, the apex constitutional authorities must exercise the power under Article 72/161 within the bounds of constitutional discipline and should dispose of the mercy petitions filed before them in an expeditious manner.”

Another contention against commuting death penalty seems to be that the convicts should prove that they “suffered” due to this delay. Death noose is before you and someone else is to decide whether or not you should be hanged, is it wise to say that you will enjoy the delay in decision? Seems like the apex court also thought in these terms when it said that “The argument that the petitioners are under a legal obligation to produce evidence of their sufferings and harm caused to them on account of prolonged delay is unknown to law and will be misinterpretation of Shatrughan Chauhan (case) .Such a prerequisite would render the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution beyond the reach of death-row convicts and will make them nugatory and inaccessible for all intent and purposes. Besides, there is no requirement in Indian law as well as in international judgments for a death-row convict to prove actual harm occasioned by the delay. There is no obligation on the convict to demonstrate specific ill effects of suffering and agony on his mind and body as a prerequisite for commutation of sentence of death.”

While some celebrate this judgment as if the assassins were declared innocent, To them Supreme Court says “ We once again clarify that the relief sought for under these kind of petitions is not per se review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution on merits but on the ground of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to all the citizens including the death row convicts.”  The court also noted the unreasonable delay in executive decisions and expressed displeasure over it as follows  “We are confident that the mercy petitions filed under Article 72/161 can be disposed of at a much faster pace than what is adopted now, if the due procedure prescribed by law is followed in verbatim. The fact that no time limit is prescribed to the President/Governor for disposal of the mercy petition should compel the government to work in a more systematized manner to repose the confidence of the people in the institution of democracy. Besides, it is definitely not a pleasure for this Court to interfere in the constitutional power vested under Article 72/161 of the Constitution and, therefore, we implore upon the government to render its advice to the President within a reasonable time so that the President is in a position to arrive at a decision at the earliest.”

Finally Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of assassins of our Former Prime minister into imprisonment for life. SC concluded the judgment by “We commute their death sentence into imprisonment for life. Life imprisonment means end of one’s life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which, in turn, is subject to the procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and further substantive check in Section 433-A of the Code.”

As a student of law, what I understand is that the Supreme Court has held that the inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition is a strong ground for commutation into life imprisonment. To all those who are emotionally responding to the judgment, my only submission is that emotions have no place in law. The court does not and need not know the status( socio-religious-political-economic) of killed and the killer, it only decides the issue before it. The issue, in this case, was simple- which was- whether inordinate delay is a ground for commutation. The court answered it in affirmative, just like it did in a case decided last month which was not discussed by media and the layman since it was not political or high profile in nature.

Nudity is not obscenity if it carries good message : SC

The message, the photograph wants to convey is that the colour of skin matters little and love champions over colour. Picture promotes love affair, leading to a marriage, between a white-skinned man and a black skinned woman. We should, therefore, appreciate the photograph and the article in the light of the message it wants to convey, that is to eradicate the evil of racism and apartheid in the society and to promote love and marriage between white skinned man and a black skinned woman. When viewed in that angle, we are not prepared to say that the picture or the article which was reproduced by Sports World and the Anandabazar Patrika be said to be objectionable so as to initiate proceedings under Section 292 IPC or under Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.


Prior record of the conviction,a relevant factor in awarding Death Sentence, only if it has attained finality : SC

Important observations by Hon. Supreme Court in Birju Vs. State of M.P. can be read below

  • The case before SC was about killing of a child aged one year who was in the arms of his grand-father, for which the accused was awarded death sentence by the trial court, which was affirmed by the High Court and these appeals have been preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to him for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
  • One of the factors which weighed with the High Court to affirm the death sentence was that the accused was charge-sheeted for commissioning of 24 criminal cases, out of which three were under Section 302 IPC and two were under Section 307 IPC, consequently, the Court held that there was no probability that the accused would not commit the act of violence in future and his presence would be a continuing threat to the society. The Court also took the view that there was no possibility or probability of reformation or rehabilitation of the accused.
  • We may first examine whether “substantial history of serious assaults and criminal conviction” is an aggravating circumstance when the court is dealing with the offences relating to the heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity etc. Prior record of the conviction, in our view, will be a relevant factor, but that conviction should have attained finality so as to treat it as aggravating circumstance for awarding death sentence. The second aspect deals with a situation where an offence was committed, while the offender was engaged in the commission of another serious offence. This is a situation where the accused is engaged in the commission of another serious offence which has not ended in conviction and attained finality

Long delay in courts is a mitigating factor to decide on Quantum of Sentence : Supreme Court


A man was accused of corruption in 1984, the case came up for trial in 1994, He was convicted in 2003. High Court refused to interfere in the findings of Trial court and took 10 years for it. Finally Supreme Court mitigated the sentence, and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000.  This decision by The Supreme Court is important in two aspects. One is that it exposes the ultra-slow criminal justice system in our country, and the other is the observation  “The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence”. Important observations by Supreme Court in this case is given below. Full judgment can be read here

  • Appellant was tried for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code  and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.The charge was that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.265/- from a contractor  on 21.12.1984. The Sessions court convicted him of the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5, 000/- each under the charged Sections, as per Judgment dated 10.04.2003. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal as per Judgment dated 22.07.2013 and, hence, the appeal in Supreme Court.
  • “One wonders as to how it took ten years for the matter to be registered as sessions case and stranger is it to see that the trial also took almost ten years and still stranger is that the matter took ten years in the High Court.”
  • “In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions court only in 1994. The sessions court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.”
  • “The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.”