scientific-analysis
Democracy demands constitutional face of media
Parliament, the mothepr of “hate-speech” played by the executive, watchdog judiciary and media nurturer
Hate speech means hate speech in Hindi and as per the law, there is no definite definition of which words come under its purview or not. Wherever a trend of people is made on the streets and social media, the camel is made to sit on the same side. Here too, there is no arrangement or system in place to accurately know in which direction the trend is taking place, just the direction in which more media organizations are deployed or deployed, falls within the scope of hate speech. or goes out.
The way today’s factional political confusion has given rise to mobocracy, the lines of the future have started forming which show that in the times to come, the decisions of judges will also be given the garb of hate speech. Anyway, in most of the cases these days, the judiciary does not show the way to stop the system from disintegrating by giving punishment, rather it sets out on a long journey in time by merely making harsh remarks.
The Prime Minister, as the leader of the House, took all the MPs from the old Parliament House i.e. the Constitution House to the new Parliament House and the Speakers of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha had to come through the back doors whereas the efforts were made to keep everyone within the ambit of leadership and the Constitution. It is their responsibility. New copies of the Constitution were printed and all the MPs were arrested, but except for the amendments that were made with time, everyone’s crops were filled with water and boasted that it was they who liberated the country by fighting the British and it is they who have now brought real democracy. When the work started in the new Parliament building for the first time, the water from the chest came out of the mouth in the form of abusive words through the stomach, then everyone came to know that these people had hidden the title of mother of hate-speech in their minds in the form of a worm. Have brought.
Media has no constitutional face and no pillar of legal accountability as the fourth pillar. It is just a piece of crooked, sharp, flat and ugly stone scattered on the streets, which cannot be brought together through any material, price, punishment or discrimination. -Keeps picking up a stone and throwing it. Taking advantage of this, the Parliament, under the guise of its privileges, escapes from the rules and laws of the Constitution. It is within the Parliament’s prerogative to delete or keep its records, but with live telecast, it goes within the constitutional rights and scope of the media. If we follow this dignity and morality, the courts cannot do justice because everywhere the privileges of family, society, caste group, religion and sect will come in the way.
Now, in the absence of this constitutional face of the media, the government is following the British principle of divide and rule and is dividing the abusive words of the MP on the basis of party, opposition, caste and religion so that the public does not ask whether What legal action did the Parliament take on these abuses? Political parties fought within each other, beat each other up, but they are just scraps of food from the same plate. These same MPs and their party colleagues are now coming on the media and playing pretend by dividing themselves into different parties and factions and by taking each other’s name, they are making the countrymen listen to abuses by saying ‘he said this before, where did he say this before?’ are
Judiciary has become the watchdog of hate speech, neither is it going inside and fulfilling its constitutional duty by asserting the prerogative of the Parliament, nor is it allowing anyone else to do so. Once it becomes public through live telecast, what privilege is left? Many hate speech cases are going on in the courts, but every time the Parliament or the government should make this arrangement, form this committee, decide the guidelines, they are avoiding being the constitutional face of the media. The job of the Parliament i.e. legislature is only to make laws, the job of the executive i.e. the so-called government is only to run the system, in a democracy it is the job of the judiciary to do justice in any field, even if it is the President’s House, this is what the Constitution says. The copy of the Constitution is kept inside the Parliament House, hence perhaps the judges are not able to read it. For this reason, your scientific analysis has been saying from the beginning that the copy of the Constitution should remain in the auditorium of the Supreme Court.
If the media had a constitutional face, it would have made a collective report on this and would have legally recommended action by sending it directly to the judiciary or the President in a constitutional manner. The ground truth is that if a few editors of the media make a small report on the request of the Indian Army, who are risking their lives for the country, then they have to immediately seek shelter from the judiciary in the form of the common man’s right to expression. This is the bitter truth about the media, the pillar of democracy. Let the President go, he is engrossed in the glamor of a luxurious palace like building with 400 rooms. In the absence of a constitutional face in the media, he is not even feeling the pain of the lameness of his constitutional chair. So, what is happening outside and why does the public have to hear abusive words? Wondering which lice will creep into their ears?
Shailendra Kumar Birani
young scientist