KP

Physician.
Anti Fascist.
Atheist.

[KP @drkapil09]

❤️❤️❤️

[Nakuul Mehta @NakuulMehta]

Our poetry special - #TooMuchDemocracy is now LIVE on @KOMMUNEity's youtube page.

Watch it and if you like it, please do share ❤️

Happy #RepublicDay2021

Watch:
https://t.co/dsC2ag1Nzz

[Rofl Gandhi 2.0 🏹 Commentary @RoflGandhi_]

Ek baar toh udne hi wale toh sheikh ko dekhkar...fir yaad aaya ki tel bachana hai 🤣�

[Ratan Ranjan @RatanRanjan_]

अरविंदो मार्ग पर पद्मिनी एनक्लेव में कोठी बंगले में रहने वाले लोगो ने अपनी गाड़ी खड़ी करने के लिए सर्विस रॉड को लोहे की ग्रिल लगाकर हमेशा के लिए बंद कर दिया जिससे हर रोज लाखो लोगो को ग्रिन पार्क से हौज खास की ओर जाने वाले लोगो को घंटों जाम का सामना करना पड़ता है। @gupta_rekha @upadhyaysbjp @DelhiPwd @MCD_Delhi @LtGovDelhi @p_sahibsingh

[Saurav Das @SauravDassss]

This kind of a statement should directly lead to impeachment of the judge. As responsible citizens, we cannot allow judicial standards and ethics to fall to such pits. The dignity of the chair and institution is at stake here. Leader of Opposition @RahulGandhi should condemn this statement and consider moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice. Someone should speak up for our courts!

[Manoj Kumar Jha @manojkjhadu]

https://t.co/sgfEvMjVmV

[Saurav Das @SauravDassss]

Will the Hon’ble Chief Justice reveal his record of how to get employment for the benefit of young parasites and cockroaches? I’m sure he can take a masterclass on the methods he followed.

[Saurav Das @SauravDassss]

#ImportantNews: Within days of 7 AAP Rajya Sabha MPs from Punjab shifting allegiance to the BJP, at least 3 politically sensitive matters connected to some of them came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, specifically, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu.

I’ve found that in two of these three cases, the High Court’s own listing process did not follow the ordinary roster. For instance:

1. In Sandeep Pathak’s case:

The case concerned Pathak who approached the High Court apprehending coercive action by the Punjab government.

During the hearing, the State said no coercive action would be taken without intimating the Court, but the written order records it as no coercive action without “prior permission” of the Court. The issue of maintainability was also not decided.

Interestingly, the High Court’s own March 2026 notified roster shows that the MP/MLA criminal matters are before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s bench. However, this matter was listed before Chief Justice Nagu through a special administrative order. And a sweeping relief was granted.

2. In Rajinder Gupta’s case:

Gupta’s petition seeking security cover was somehow specifically listed before Chief Justice Nagu, even though similar matters were pending before Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s bench who also holds the roster. The Main case is CWP 12075-2026.

The High Court's order itself notes that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already provided security cover to Gupta in Punjab and Delhi yet the case was listed before a different bench for reasons unknown.

3. In the Trident case:

The third case is CWP-13613-2026, Trident Limited vs State of Punjab and Anr. This matter concerned a raid conducted on 30 April 2026 by officers of the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Trident, whose Chairman Emeritus is Rajinder Gupta, sought protection from coercive steps and also sought a direction that the seized samples be sent to a Central Testing Laboratory outside Punjab.

Although the roster originally remains with the Chief Justice's bench, the bench went out of the way to grant a relief by observing in the order that Trident’s apprehension that the raid stemmed from political vendetta appeared “reasonably palpable”. The Court ultimately directed that the Pollution Control Board could take coercive steps only after giving Trident 30 days to rectify minor deficiencies, even though the Water Rules only allow a 15-day notice period!

And this, after the bench itself took note of the Pollution Control Board’s objection that Trident had an alternative remedy before the National Green Tribunal. The bench also referred to Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules, under which prior hearing can be dispensed with where grave environmental injury is likely!

The Larger Issue

Take these three cases together. Three matters connected to AAP-to-BJP defectors reached the Chief Justice within a short span. At least two belonged before other roster benches. The matters were specially listed before Chief Justice Nagu by a Special Administrative Order. And in all three cases, the Court granted some form of protective relief, even sweeping in Pathak’s case which a opposition leader can only dream of getting.

The concern is not simply about the outcome of these cases. It is about the route by which they reached the Chief Justice, and the absence of a TRANSPARENT explanation for why these cases were so special that ordinary roster allocation did not apply!

The Chief Justice is the master of the roster, sure. But precisely because that power determines which judge hears which case, it carries a duty of VISIBLE neutrality. In politically sensitive matters, especially those involving recent defections from one party to another, even the appearance of selective listing can raise serious institutional questions.

The Pathak-Kejriwal Comparison

This is the most important part. Just compare Sandeep Pathak’s case before a High Court of a non-BJP state with Arvind Kejriwal’s case before the High Court of a BJP state, and you will see how different yardsticks apply in each.

In Pathak’s case, the designated roster judge for MP/MLA criminal matters very much existed. Yet, Chief Justice Nagu issued a special administrative order to list the matter before himself and then granted Pathak sweeping protection by converting prior intimation into a mandatory judicial pre-clearance before any action could be taken.

But in Kejriwal’s case before the Delhi High Court, the opposite happens. Despite serious and well-documented concerns of conflict of interest, bias, and unusual judicial attachment to the CBI appeal matter, the Chief Justice remains silent. The case is not withdrawn from that judge. It is not placed before a fresh bench.

The larger context too is hard to ignore. The Supreme Court’s INACTION and DELAY in the AAP vs LG constitutional crisis in Delhi and MVA government toppling in Maharashtra, and its ACTIVE intervention in Bengal’s SIR case, have produced political consequences that have greatly benefited the political fortunes of the same side.

Recently, CJI Surya Kant raised the sensitive issue of Punjab’s drug menace, observing that the “big fish” are not being caught by the State government. Punjab goes to polls in a matter of months. So can the timing be treated as accidental?

Each of these instances, viewed separately, may be explained away with a shrug. But look at them together, and a deeply disturbing pattern emerges.

It is this pattern---of SELECTIVE urgency, SELECTIVE silence, SELECTIVE roster control, and SELECTIVE intervention that corrodes public faith in the judiciary’s neutrality. Unfortunately, soon, citizens will begin to notice the growing weaponisation of the judiciary.

[Prashant Bhushan @pbhushan1]

Watch: Mehdi Hasan interviewing Ram Madhav. Poor man was totally at sea!

[Abhinav Pandey @Abhinav_Pan]

CAPF की मुस्तैदी देखने लायक है…

[Rofl Gandhi 2.0 🏹 Commentary @RoflGandhi_]

कल दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता जी ने जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता को बताया कि जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता एक निष्पक्ष जज हैं, इसलिए जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता ने आदेश दिया कि जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता को केस से हटाया नहीं जायेगा। जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता के इस फैसले से जस्टिस स्वर्णकांता को न्याय मिला।

[ᴋᴀᴍʟᴇsʜ sɪɴɢʜ / tau @kkstau]

Epic at so many levels. Above all, the sturdiness of the catenary support arms and tubes. 👏👏 Indian Railway.

[ᴋᴀᴍʟᴇsʜ sɪɴɢʜ / tau @kkstau]

You have the right to expose/name/shame the corrupt.

The corrupt babu has a right to file an FIR. The police has a duty to probe. The court has to hear the case.

They are all instruments of the state. You are alone.

You have to hire a lawyer. You don't have the money. The state wins.

Your right is nothing against the state's might.

Sarkari dakait ki di hui maut badi fssainuma hoti hai.

[Rofl Gandhi 2.0 🏹 Commentary @RoflGandhi_]

Joker hi bana diya hai insta walon ne toh 🤣🤣🤣 https://t.co/m3kUVFO5ZM

[Saurav Das @SauravDassss]

#NewColumn🚨

A journalist calls unscientific content “shit” and faces judicial threats; hate speech offenders face years of judicial “monitoring” with little consequence. What does this asymmetry say about constitutional priorities?

Another element lost in the judge’s remark was the genre of Pande’s show: satire. Satire is not a form of speech that approaches power with bent knees. It is designed to puncture pretence and make visible what “polite” language conceals. Satire stands among the most insulated forms of free expression in a constitutional order. It ought not to seek prior permission and should be at no mercy of subsequent forgiveness.

The judge’s treatment of satire as though it were a violation of his courtroom’s etiquette reveals a deep crack in free speech protections, signalling lower tolerance for dissenting expression within courts. Not that any language can be used anywhere, but that is precisely why genre matters. To erase this distinction is to collapse all kinds of speech into a single register of permissible politeness. Satire always was, is, and will be, the safest bastion of free speech and ought to be fully protected by judicial restraint in democracies with mature judiciaries.

@MnshaP, exercising her fullest latitude of satirical speech in service of scientific temper, was met with judicial threats of professional ruin, but saved not by institutional self-correction but by public outcry.

But consider this. The Supreme Court had issued guidelines and held that if the police failed to comply with them, including suo-motu registration of FIRs in ACTUAL hate speech cases, it would invite contempt action. That promise, however, proved fleeting.

At least nine contempt petitions alleging wholesale non-compliance were filed, tagged, and ultimately left unaddressed as benches changed and urgency dissipated. What now follows before Justice Vikram Nath’s bench is a familiar judicial retreat. His bench is closing the Hate Speech cases. The practical effect is no coordinated enforcement, no consequences for repeat offenders, and no interruption to an ecosystem of industrial-scale hate speech that has grown more sophisticated.

My 23rd 'Case In Point' column for the @frontline_india: https://t.co/RM3pQT5K4v

[Kunal Kamra @kunalkamra88]

Poet - Jacinta Kerketta

[Prashant Bhushan @pbhushan1]

It is totally shocking, unfair & unjust for the SC to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjil Imam. They have not been accused of violence themselves, but of Conspiracy. There are multiple videos of their speeches, where they speak against violence.
They have spent 5 years in Jail w/o trial. Yet the SC denies bail on the basis of police statements of ‘protected witnesses’, whose identities have been concealed.
Shameful, & makes a mockery of the right to life & liberty

[Sarvapriya Sangwan @DrSarvapriya]

Welcome to democracy!

[Anurag Dwary @Anurag_Dwary]

नील कुर्ते में जो शख्स चमचागिरी पर ज्यादा उतारू है इलाके का पार्षद है जहां इन बेगुनाह लोगों की मौत हुई है जब लोग मर रहे थे तो वो झूले में झूल कर तस्वीर खिंचवा रहा था

[Abhinav Pandey @Abhinav_Pan]

‘पिता BSF में, बेटे को चाइनीज़ बोल मार दिया’ Anjel Chakma को याद कर रोने लगे दोस्त, जो कहा वो पूरे देश को सुनना चाहिए।