#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
Supreme Court Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde will shortly consider today a batch of PILs seeking removal of farmers protesting at Delhi borders against farm laws.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020

#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
SG: I just received a message.
CJI: We don’t have any information of him appearing.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
Courtmaster informs CJI that no AOR has informed of Salve’s appearance.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
Tiwari continues his submissions.
CJI: This is such an important matter. Why can’t you argue it properly ? We are asking, what is your standing, your issues and your prayer.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
CJI: Please don’t interrupt us, there’s no case of Salve before us.
Om Prakash Parihar makes submissions now.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
CJI: How many people had blocked the road there ? Will the number of people not determine this ? Who will take responsibility ? There can be no precedent in law and order situation.
CJI asks the Petitioners if the organisations have been added. Parihar responds that there is no information of the organisations.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
Parihar: Then the Court will say that we are relying on newspaper reports and dismiss this.
CJI: You should be assisting the Court. Don’t unnecessarily argue with us.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
“I don’t know if this is the farmer’s fault or the government’s fault”.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt
Mani submits that he knows the pain of protesting in the peak cold.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
SG: I have not blocked the road.
SG: The farmers are protesting and roads have been blocked by Delhi Police.
CJI: So, the only party who is actually on ground is you.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
SG: Bhartiya Kisan Union. The government will not do anything against the interest of farmers. Sit with the government clause by clause, then there can be a discussion or debate with an open mind.
SG: I can give you the name within ten minutes. Immediately I can think of Bhartiya Kisan.
Adv. Rahul Mehra, GNCTD appears: No efforts have been made to check the veracity of the claims of the Petitioners and to show the authenticity.
SG: He seems to be appearing for some farmer organisation.
Mehra: I can also say that you are appearing for something else.
SG: Yes, we will talk over call.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt #FarmLaws2020
More from Live Law
More from Court
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?