#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 need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
