By Mumbai Press Bureau
MUMBAI — Constitutional courts are duty-bound to quash criminal proceedings launched merely to suppress dissent and must refrain from lecturing citizens on what they should or should not say, former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka emphasized at a legal event in the city.

Speaking at the inaugural Advocate Haroon Solkar Memorial Lecture Series held at the K.C. College auditorium in Mumbai, Justice Oka highlighted the urgent need to defend fundamental civil liberties amidst rising intolerance toward public criticism and opposition viewpoints.

The lecture focused on the theme “Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21: Followed or Forgotten?”, addressing the growing friction between state authority, judicial oversight, and constitutional rights.
“Not the Role of Courts to Preach or Teach”
Justice Oka—who served on the Supreme Court bench from August 2021 until May 2025—stressed that when citizens approach constitutional courts seeking relief against frivolous or politically motivated criminal prosecutions, the judiciary must stand at the forefront as their protective shield.

“The court may not like what the petitioners have said or expressed, but still it is the duty of the court to protect the freedom of speech and expression. It is not the function of the court to preach or teach the petitioner what he or she should have said or not said,” Justice Oka stated.

He added that judicial scrutiny in such matters should remain strictly limited to assessing whether an actual penal offense is disclosed under the law, rather than evaluating the social or political palatability of the statements.
Citing Sir Thomas More: “Rulers of the Day”
Invoking Irish writer Sir Thomas More, Justice Oka reminded the audience that in a vibrant democracy, citizens cannot be expected to express only opinions that please those in authority.

“Citizens are not expected to say only those things that are liked by the rulers of the day,” Justice Oka remarked, warning that suppressing unpopular viewpoints poses a direct threat to democratic governance.

“If democracy is to survive, we must guard and protect our freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India—even if we have to pay a huge cost to protect these fundamental rights,” he urged the gathering of jurists, advocates, and legal scholars.

Peaceful Protest and “Forgotten Principles” of Dialogue
Underlining that peaceful assembly and demonstration are intrinsic to the right to free expression, Justice Oka emphasized that staging peaceful protests is often the primary lawful avenue citizens have to register dissatisfaction when public grievances go unaddressed.
While the state is not obligated to accept every demand, Justice Oka stressed that government institutions hold a fundamental obligation to engage in constructive dialogue.

“In a democracy, every citizen has a right to put forth his demands, and it is the duty of the state to deal with the same,” he noted. “The government may or may not accept it, but it is the government’s duty to consider it, have a dialogue and discussion. But perhaps with the passage of time, we have all forgotten these golden principles.”

He cautioned against the casual invocation of penal provisions against critics, journalists, and activists, pointing out that disagreement with an opinion should be met with an alternative viewpoint rather than punitive criminal proceedings.
State Obligations and Judicial Vigilance
Reflecting on constitutional duties, Justice Oka asserted that while citizens are frequently reminded of their obligations under Article 51A, the state holds a corresponding responsibility to uphold core constitutional ideals, including secularism, democracy, and personal liberty.

“In the present day, we rarely see the government respecting the ideals under the Constitution,” Justice Oka observed, calling on constitutional courts to remain ever-vigilant guardians against the erosion of fundamental freedoms. “I always believe that the courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of citizens,” he concluded. “If courts are not going to protect these fundamental rights, then who is? It is the bounden duty of the courts to ensure that the Constitution and its ideals are not trampled upon.”

Mumbai: The government is failing to open new schools, with incidents coming to light where private and trust-run schools that provide education to children in poor and minority areas are facing pressure and FIRs due to hateful propaganda like ‘school jihad’.

In the wake of this serious issue, Mankhurdshivaji Nagar MLA Abu Asim Azmi today met newly appointed Additional Commissioner of Police (Additional CP) Dhananjay Kulkarni along with a delegation of schools facing such action and submitted a memorandum. The memorandum requested that if a police visit to a school is necessary for investigation or investigation, the officers should appear in plain clothes. The delegation urged the authorities to avoid coming out of the school premises with police vans or heavy police force so as not to create an atmosphere of fear and panic among children, parents and teachers. It said that the trustees are ready to personally visit the police station to provide any necessary documents or records required by the police. The attitude of the police towards educational institutions that uphold the right to education for children from poor neighborhoods should be sensitive, cooperative and respectful.

Speaking on the occasion, Abu Asim Azmi stressed that the educational environment should remain safe, impartial and free from fear at all times. He stressed that the future of children from disadvantaged areas should not be sacrificed for any hateful agenda or baseless punitive actions.

New Delhi, Aug 7: The BJP on Friday clarified that the proposed charges on Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions would not be imposed on ordinary users and would apply only to commercial transactions.

The clarification came a day after the Lok Sabha passed a Bill to amend the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, authorising the government to permit banks and other service providers to levy charges on payments made through UPI and other notified electronic payment modes.

Speaking to media, BJP MP Ashok Mittal said, “First of all, I would like to clarify that charges on UPI are not being imposed on the common man. They will only apply to commercial transactions. The charges on UPI will only be applicable to certain business-related transactions and not to ordinary users.”

BJP Bihar President Sanjay Saraogi also sought to allay concerns, saying the move would not place any burden on the general public.

“UPI has brought a digital revolution to India. Whether traders, street vendors or cart vendors, everyone has used UPI and contributed to the country’s growth. The law has only been enacted now. The extent of any charges and the manner in which they will be implemented will be decided later when the rules are framed. The RBI or the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) will have to take a decision on the matter,” he said.

Janata Dal (United) MLC Neeraj Kumar Singh defended the proposal, arguing that payment systems require sustainable business models to continue functioning effectively.

“If you want to make a transaction through UPI, what is wrong with paying a charge for it? If you have obtained a GST number for business purposes and want to carry out transactions, then you have to pay for the system. UPI was initially in an experimental stage and there were no charges. If a fee is introduced now, there should not be any issue because every business model has to be sustainable. The government is still providing significant relief to the people,” he told media.

However, the proposal drew criticism from the Opposition. BSP MLA Satish Kumar Singh Yadav said, “It seems that everything is being taxed now. Soon, the government may even impose a tax on speaking and listening. There are taxes on everything — eating, drinking, travelling and sleeping — and now even on UPI. It feels like every aspect of life is being brought under taxation.”

The amendment, passed by the Lok Sabha without discussion amid uproar, seeks to remove the existing legal provision that prevents banks and payment service providers from charging Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on notified electronic payment modes.

The government’s approach aims to levy small charge on digital payment services for consumers and small businesses while ensuring a sustainable revenue model for banks, payment service providers (PSPs), and payment infrastructure firms that drive the digital payments ecosystem.