#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
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x