Neither fish nor fowl: Abhi’sex’ stripped by fellow ‘kaalakot’!!!

The controversial CD, that had cost Congress MP Manu Singhvi more than just his post of party spokesperson, has returned to haunt the senior lawyer.

In an apparent fallout of the ‘certain incident’ came to light through a CD,  the Supreme Court advocates reportedly passed a resolution to boycott him. This, when Singhvi had to give in to the mounting pressure to quit Congress amid huge criticism after the alleged CD came into light.

According to reports, the Supreme Court Bar Association recently passed a resolution deciding not to engage senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, allegedly involved in a controversial CD with a lady advocate.

The resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Association wherein it was unanimously decided that Singhvi shall not be engaged by any of the advocates on record henceforth.

The Association also dispatched a copy of the resolution to Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia expressing dismay at the alleged controversial action, which it felt went against the professional conduct prescribed for the lawyers under the Advocates Act.

The SC advocates’ move comes nine days after Manu Singhvi resigned as the Congress spokesperson.

The series of controversies started after Singhvi approached Delhi High Court to stop a media house from publishing contents of the allegedly ‘forged, fabricated and morphed’ CD.

The Congress leader got some respite initially as the HC restrained the media from making public the contents of the alleged CD. The relief was shortlived as two days after the HC’s order, the content of the video went viral online.

The Congress leader’s driver admitted that he distributed a “distorted” video to take revenge on Singhvi.

Advertisements

Singhvi Sexcapade: India Today Group folded its tent without resistance!

India’s Gutless Media

Achal Mehra writes in LittleIndia

That a deep pocketed media house like the India Today Group folded its tent without resistance in the face of Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s legal threats, while an obscure activist with a checkered free speech history dared to resist, is a permanent blot on a storied media house, for which it owes its readers and the public an apology and an explanation.….But the notoriously inept, reckless and wimpish Indian media elected to censor the video, huffing and puffing about press freedoms, prurient interests and privacy rights instead to obscure their own failures at being scooped by activists and the social media. As a result, few Indians have actually seen the video, even though nearly a million people have viewed it online on YouTube, Twitvid and other social media sites.

…..The conduct of Aaj Tak, Headlines Today and India Today, among the country’s preeminent media companies, who were in possession of the CDs, is especially troubling. The India Today Group, which controls these three media houses, raised no public objection to the blatant censorship attempt, seemingly advanced no defense on behalf of the public interest, and instead, by all accounts, consented meekly to the court order and surrendered the CDs. 

.…According to Singhvi’s legal pleadings, several political leaders contacted him on March 23 and 24 about the CDs being in the possession of journalists. If true, why didHeadlines Today and Aaj Tak not broadcast them or disclose that they possessed them during the three weeks before Singhvi went to court to have them censored?

Click here, to read the full article..

Singhvi Sexcapade: Social media did not violate any high court order

Singhvi in Catch-22 situation: If Singhvi claims right to privacy (in this case),he will he would have to admit the contents of the clip was correct.

Video clippings allegedly featuring Senior Advocate and former Congress Spokesperson, Abhishek Manu Singhvi has quite literally been all over the internet. Although Singhvi was quick in securing an ex parte injunction from the Delhi High Court against three media houses who were in possession of the CD, by then the damage had already been done with the video going viral on the internet.

social media did not violate any high court order..” 

says, Apar Gupta, Partner at Advani & Co, a reputed law firm. He said in an interview given to  Bar & Bench (http://www.barandbench.com), a legal matters related website that,

“… the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the driver who captured and morphed the footage.., and some television news broadcasters ( Aaj Tak, Headlines Today and the India Today Group). The interim injunction was not a John Doe injunction and would not have been applicable against any other parties except the ones, which were named as defendants in the suit…”

Pranesh Prakash of Centre of Internet and Society, another legal expert in these matters opined that:

“…. sites such as YouTube are not broadcasting sites, rather they are being used to broadcast. This distinction, which is not important when it comes to television, is critical when it comes to user-uploaded content and user-generated content. Given that there are thousands of video-sharing websites, there is no way of ensuring that all of them comply with an Indian court order. “

Asked whether public figures have a right to privacy, Apar Gupta said:

“…If (in Singhvi’s case)  privacy would have been claimed, Dr. Singhvi would have been in a unique catch-22 where to claim privacy he would have to admit the contents of the clip (if not the clip in its entirety) was correct. Hence, defamation is an easier ground where he can claim the clip was morphed and hence untrue….”

Can Abhishek Manu Singhvi file a case of defamation against the social media websites for posting the contents of the CD on their websites, Apar gupta says:

” ….Social media websites are only a platform. The case would be on firm legal footing if he gave notice to the social media websites as to the precise URL which contained the defamatory contents and they failed to act within 36 hours to take it down as per the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. I would also anticipate that if such a case was filed, social media websites would plead innocent dissemination as a defense.”

To the same question Pranesh Prakash says:

Again, I must clarify that social media websites have not posted the contents of the CD on their websites. Users of social media websites have done so.Should Mr. Singhvi be able to? The answer, I believe, should depend on whether the social media platforms were informed about the conduct of unlawful activity on their platforms and still chose not to remove it. The determination of unlawful activity should ideally be from a court. This, I believe is the correct interpretation of Section 79(3) of the IT Act, which deals with intermediary liability.

Read the full interview : Bar & Bench