#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea of Sunaina Holey accused of making objectionable statements against Maharastra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Cabinet Minister Aaditya Thackeray.
@SunainaHoley
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
@CMOMaharashtra
@MumbaiPolice

Chandrachud: in the present case there is no public disorder caused by the objected tweets.
Chandrachud: She is a consultant, advises companies. She is an MBA graduate.
I understood when you milords asked me the question. She is not a leader of any opposition party, or any other political organisation.
Chandrachud: Milords her twitter bio space mentions that she is a follower of RSS, and some otber things, but that does not mean she is a leader.
There could be many interpretations of a verse written by a poet.
https://t.co/VBdiWPh7A7
The fact that he had apologised meant that he was guilty of usung a derogatory term for a Sufi saint.
Chandrachud: Merely advocating an opinion is not inciting the public.
Court asks him to continue tomorrow as there is a meeting now.
More from Bar & Bench
More from Law
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
The entire first part of the hearing related to messages sent by certain individuals from the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group seeking cooperation with trans allies at Garden Court. So far all the discussion has been about whether their names must remain redacted.
— LGB Alliance (@ALLIANCELGB) February 11, 2021
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.