Senior Advocate Abhay Nath Yadav, who was representing the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee in the Gyanvapi case, succumbed to a heart attack on Sunday.

Reports said the lawyer was admitted to a hospital on Maqbool Alam Road in Varanasi on Sunday after experiencing a major heart attack around 10:30 pm on Sunday, as per the information made available by Banaras Bar Association’s Senior Advocate Nityanand Rai.

He was taken to Trimurti Hospital after he got a heart attack and the doctors declared him dead. He was later on taken to Shubham Hospital by his relatives for confirmation, and the doctors here also said he was dead.

On August 4, a reply had to be submitted from the Muslim side in the Shringar Gauri and Gyanvapi cases, in which the role of advocate Abhay Nath Yadav would have been important.

In the Gyanvapi case, the Apex Court will be hearing the matter in October. The Supreme Court bench had said that the matter should be heard in the lower court.

Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah suffered a heart attack in Himachal Pradesh on Thursday. Justice Shah was rushed to Delhi in an air ambulance.

As the Chief Justice of India received the news of the health condition of Justice MR Shah, he immediately talked to him and got to know that his condition is better now.

CJI even took initiative and talked to the Home Ministry. Currently, for the better treatment of Justice MR Shah, he is being taken to Delhi. He has been air lifted from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi.

Justice MR Shah was appointed an additional judge of the Gujarat High Court in March 2004. The following year, his appointment was made permanent. In August 2018, he was transferred to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.

He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on November 2, 2018.

He is due to retire on May 15, 2023.

Justice Shah himself appeared on a video where he said that he is stable by the grace of God and doing well.

New Delhi (IL News Service): Sangeeta Tyagi, widow of the Late Congress national spokesperson Rajiv Tyagi, who died of a heart attack on September 12 after taking part in a heated AajTak debate, is one of two who have filed an intervention application in the Sudarshan TV hate speech case that the Supreme Court is currently hearing. The other is author and researcher Dr Kota Neelima.

The applicants seek reliefs on specific issue of hate speech by television anchors. The application states that the situation of the electronic media in our country bears unhappy and undesirable resemblance to Nazi Germany, at least with regards to “hate speeches”. 

A three-judge bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and K.M. Jospeh has been hearing the plea against the programme titled ‘Bindaas Bol’ on Sudarshan News Channel. The plea alleges that the programme contains statements which are derogatory to Muslims in India.  

The intervention application has been filed by Advocate-On-Record Sunil Fernandes on behalf of the two. The application says that both, by virtue of their unique personal and professional expertise, are appropriately placed to assist the apex court in the adjudication, determination of the larger issue of ‘hate speeches’ and its malicious consequences on the polity and society of India, with specific reference to the ‘hate speeches’ peddled by the TV anchors today under the blatant abuse of the constitutional provisions of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

While Dr Kota Neelima has been analysing television news debates, under the initiative, Rate the Debate (RTD), Sangeeta Tyagi says she has witnessed and suffered the irredeemable consequences of hate speech, as her late husband was a victim of that. 

The applicants have submitted that the impugned programme ‘Bindaas Bol’ unequivocally and unambiguously answers to the definition of a hate speech. However, this broadcast, by the TV Anchor Suresh Chavhanke is emblematic of a larger, insidious malady that has infected the electronic media of our country i.e. the propensity of TV anchors to shamelessly indulge in hate speeches via the medium of so called TV debates on prime time.

Therefore, the applicants believe, says the appeal, that the menace of hate speech in TV debates by TV anchors need appropriate, ameliorative and remedial directions or orders from the court to restrict the menace. This is till such time that the legislature frames an appropriate legislation in this regard.

The applicants have also urged the court to not to give the benefit of Freedom to Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to such TV anchors and peddlers of hate speeches as any such protection would be destructive of not only of Article 19 itself, but of our very constitutional edifice.

Read Also: Aviation Regulators Fly High

They said that not only is physical violence the condemnable by-product of such hate-speeches, it also renders the public discourse toxic and vitiated. Such constant vitriolic verbal violence by TV anchors poisons the minds of an average viewer with prejudice. 

The application has also suggested the constitution of a committee for the time being to develop norms for mandatory discussions on chosen topics that reflect the concerns in the Constitution of India in order to establish a healthy atmosphere in the country. The Committee will develop a mechanism which will have a rating system for the TV anchors and news debates, so as to ensure that news debates are democratic and fair, and do not pander to divisive agenda.

-India Legal Bureau

The Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record Association today (July 9) has passed a resolution unanimously calling upon the competent authority to immediately hold a time-bound enquiry against the erring officers, SC Security & Govt dispensary on account of failure which has cost a precious life of Advocate, Mr S. K. Dhingra.

On July 8, Mr. SK Dhingra, 80 year old lawyer with almost 50 years of practice died after consecutive heart attacks in his chamber. Reportedly, his clerk had called up his daughter, also a lawyer. He had called the Government Dispensary which is in the Supreme Court Complex but no doctor was available on duty that time. There was no ambulance which usually stands outside the dispensary.

Today, taking note of the unfortunate demise of lawyer Mr SK Dhingra, SCAORA holds a virtual meeting and passed a resolution.

“It has come to the notice of SCAORA that sudden demise of Mr. S. K. Dhingra, Advocate within the Supreme Court premises was reportedly due to non availability of any basic medical assistance from the government dispensary within the Supreme Court premises, which apparently had no medicine, no doctor on duty nor an ambulance. Further, such untimely demise of Mr. S. K. Dhingra was reportedly also due to the refusal by the Supreme Court security to allow entry of the vehicle from Gate B despite being told of the emergency medical situation- which wasted crucial time that could have led providing emergency medical treatment to Mr. S. K. Dhingra, Advocate and saved his life. Should this be the position, it is an utter failure of the Supreme Court administration and security,” said SCAORA.

SCAORA calls upon the competent authority to immediately hold a time-bound enquiry against the concerned officers in the Supreme Court administration, the Supreme Court security and the government dispensary within the Supreme Court premises, and to take strict penal action, including prosecution for criminal negligence and dismissal from service, against the erring officers.

In its letter SCAORA noted, that Supreme Court does not have a state-of-art Emergency Medical facility within its premises for the benfit of the Advocates. SCAORA demands that such facility be set up and Standard Operative Procedure be laid down immediately so that no person passes away within its premises awaiting medical treatment. SCAORA further demands that the Supreme Court security be directed to be of assistance during an emergency medical situation within the Court premises.

Read the resolution here;

-India Legal Bureau