Delhi High Court has ordered removal of objectionable blog against Art of Living (AoL) founder and spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of objectionable blogs and remarks posted by a man against Art of Living (AoL) founder and spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Google's website www.Blogger.Com.

While ordering removal of his "defamatory" blogs, Justice Manmohan Singh also restrained blogger Jitender Bagga from sending objectionable emails and publishing blogs on the website against the AoL founder.

The court order came on an NGO's civil suit, seeking damages of over Rs 5 crore from the blogger and the website.

"It appears that the plaintiffs (NGO and its volunteers) have been able to make out a strong prima facie case for passing an ex-parte interim order. The balance of convenience also lies in favour the plaintiff and against the defendants (Bagga and the website).

In case, interim order is not passed, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, till the next date, the defendant 2 (website) is directed to remove all defamatory contents about the plaintiffs posted by defendant 1 (Bagga) on website www.Blogger.Com," the court said.

"Bagga is restrained from sending any email or posting any material over the website which has a direct or indirect reference to the plaintiffs or the Art of Living Foundation or any member of AoL or His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar," the court said.

Filing a civil suit through its trustee Mahesh Gupta, the NGO Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public Charitable Trust has sought a damage of Rs 5.9 crore from Bagga and the website.

It alleged Bagga has created and published various materials against the volunteers of this NGO, which promotes spiritual, educational, cultural and social developmental activities and also runs the programme called AoL. It added Bagga has published materials against its founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and his family members.

U.S. Suit Says Arizona Sheriff Discriminated Against Latinos

PHOENIX — A federal lawsuit asserting a “pattern of unlawful discrimination” by law enforcement officials here claims that Latinos at the county jail were often referred to as “stupid” or addressed with a coarse ethnic slur. It also says that an e-mail circulated among jail officers contained a photograph of a Chihuahua in a swimsuit, over the words, “A rare photo of a Mexican Navy Seal.”

On the streets, Latino drivers were five to nine times more likely than their non-Latino counterparts to be stopped or searched, the suit asserts, for appearing disheveled or dirty or if it was deemed that too many people were in the back seat. Some were detained because they were said to have looked nervous or avoided eye contact.

The accusations are among those included in a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department on Thursday against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, who, calling himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” has waged a relentless crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The litigation, in an election year, escalates a politically charged fight over local enforcement of federal immigration laws and the civil rights of Latinos. The suit asks a federal judge to issue an order against discriminatory practices by sheriff’s deputies, and to require the Sheriff’s Office to eliminate a “pattern or practice of unlawful conduct.”

Sheriff Arpaio is accused of running an agency where suspicion and grounds for arrest have been heavily influenced by ethnicity or poor English skills.

In a 32-page complaint, the Justice Department contends that he and his deputies waged a campaign against illegal immigration — through sweeps of homes and workplaces, and in traffic stops and jail practices — aimed at Latinos, regardless of status or citizenship.

Sheriff Arpaio also sought to silence his opponents — lawyers, judges and private citizens — through retaliation, at times filing lawsuits against them that were later found to be baseless, the complaint says.

“At its core, this is an abuse-of-power case involving a sheriff and sheriff’s office that disregarded the Constitution, ignored sound police practices, compromised public safety, and did not hesitate to retaliate against his perceived critics,” Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said at a news conference here.

Sheriff Arpaio has engaged in an increasingly bitter conflict with the Obama administration, including questioning the authenticity of the president’s birth certificate and portraying the civil rights investigation that preceded the lawsuit as politicized.

In a news conference at his office, Sheriff Arpaio said he would not allow his office to be "taken over by some bureaucrats in the federal government."

“I will fight this to the bitter end,” he said. He also said: “They’re using me for the Latino vote. I hate to say this is political, but the timing is suspect.”

In what was seen as a pre-emptive move, his office distributed a 17-point plan on Wednesday that promised to “establish and maintain specific bias-free law enforcement and detention” through better policies and training.

“We’re just doing our jobs enforcing illegal immigration laws,” the sheriff said Thursday. “We’re not racist.”

Mr. Perez said the document validated the lawsuit’s claims and was “largely an admission” that problems existed, but came too late to change the Justice Department’s course of action.

Portraying Sheriff Arpaio’s roughly 900 deputies as poorly trained and supervised, the suit contends that they are far more likely to stop and search Latinos than non-Latinos. Further, the complaint asserts, there is a “culture of bias” against Latinos among the 1,800 officers in the county jail system.

The federal government and Arizona officials have been feuding on many fronts about immigration enforcement. State officials contend that the government has failed to police the southwestern border, leading to a flood of illegal immigrants who have strained state services and created other problems.

The Supreme Court is weighing a federal challenge to a 2010 Arizona law that requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the United States illegally.

But even by Arizona’s strict standards, Sheriff Arpaio, a media-savvy figure who is known as Sheriff Joe, has been aggressive. The Justice Department’s investigation of his policing practices began during the administration of George W. Bush but eventually stalled.

In December, the Justice Department released a highly critical report laying out what it said were violations by Sheriff Arpaio and his office. The department moved to negotiate a settlement, but the sheriff refused to acquiesce to its demand to place an independent monitor in his office, saying it would give the federal government too much power over a local law enforcement agency.

The standoff suggests that it may take a trial to resolve the matter.

Anand Marriage Bill introduced in Rajya Sabha

New Delhi, May 7
The government today brought before Parliament a Bill to amend the 103-year-old statute that hitherto allowed solemnisation of Sikh marriages but not their legal validation.
The Anand Marriage Amendment Bill:2012, introduced in the Rajya Sabha today by Law Minister Salman Khurshid, amends the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, by inserting a new Section enabling registration of marriages performed as per the Sikh rituals (Anand Karaj).
The amendment Bill defines the Sikh marriage ceremony as “Anand Karaj” instead of “Anand” as in the old law. Once passed by both Houses of Parliament, it will give the Sikhs the liberty to register their marriages separately and will exempt them from registering these under the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, 1969 (which the government plans to amend to provide for religion neutral registration of marriages across India).
The Sikhs would continue to have the option of registering their marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as before. It was registration under this Act that had been causing confusion about their religious identity abroad with their marriage certificates describing them as Hindus.
Importantly, the amendment Bill doesn’t provide for divorce among Sikh couples. For a divorce, they would have to use the Hindu Marriage Act.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer HS Phoolka, commenting on the matter, said: “Because the amendment Bill serves a limited purpose of giving Sikh religion a separate identity by allowing marriage registration under a pre-existing law, it is not a complete marriage law.
“Any religion to be recognised must have its separate ceremony of births, deaths and marriages. Sikhs didn’t have a separate marriage law so far and they wanted the Anand Marriage Act amended for the purpose. For divorce, Sikhs can use the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The amendment Bill clearly states that “parties whose marriage has been registered under this Act won’t be required to get marriage registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, after the enactment of the proposed amendments in this Bill.” “Today we have won the battle for a separate identity as a religion,” said former MP Tarlochan Singh who led the movement for the Bill. “The SGPC is also against any divorce provision under the Anand Marriage Amendment Bill,” he said. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law had approved these amendments in 2007 when Veerappa Moily was Law Minister. “The Bill need not go again to the standing committee and can be simply taken up and passed,” Tarlochan Singh added.

No provision of divorce in the new BillFor seeking divorce, Sikhs would have to use the Hindu Marriage Act. The Union Cabinet had approved amendment to the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, on April 12 this year.

ਜਸਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਦਾ ਐਡਮਿੰਟਨ, ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਖੇ ਨਿੱਘਾ ਸਵਾਗਤ

ਜਸਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਨੂੰ ਸਨਮਾਨਿਤ ਕਰਦੇ ਵਿਧਾਇਕ ਪੀਟਰ ਸੰਧੂ, ਵਿਧਾਇਕ ਨਰੇਸ਼ ਭਾਰਦਵਾਜ

ਐਡਮਿੰਟਨ, 3 ਮਈ - ਪਿਛਲੇ ਦਿਨੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਫੇਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਆਏ ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਜਸਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਬਾਘਾ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਐਡਮਿੰਟਨ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੇਰ ਬਰਾੜ ਦੇ ਸੱਦੇ 'ਤੇ ਐਡਮਿੰਟਨ ਪੁੱਜੇ। ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਵਾਗਤ ਲਈ ਬਰਾੜ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਨੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਮਹਾਰਾਜਾ ਹਾਲ ਵਿਖੇ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ ਕੀਤਾ। ਸਮਾਗਮ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਧਾਨਗੀ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਜਸਵਿੰਦਰ ਨੇ ਪੁੱਜੇ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੰਭੀਰਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਕਿ ਜਦੋਂ ਵੀ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ 'ਚ ਵਸਦੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਚੱਲ-ਅਚੱਲ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਕਰੀ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਹੱਕ ਆਪਣੇ ਰਿਸ਼ਤੇਦਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਲੀਜ਼, ਸਾਂਝ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਹੱਕ ਦੇਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ। ਅੱਜਕਲ੍ਹ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਵਿਖੇ ਜਾਇਦਾਦਾਂ ਲੱਖਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਕਰੋੜਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਬਣ ਚੁੱਕੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਇਥੇ ਵਸਦਾ ਭਾਈਚਾਰਾ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਆਪਣੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਬੈਠੇ ਪਰਿਵਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਵਜੋਂ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਆਮਦਨ ਵਰਤਣ ਲਈ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਪ੍ਰੰਤੂ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਚ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਵਸਦਾ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਉਸ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੀ ਸਮਝ ਬੈਠਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦਾਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਕਬਜ਼ੇ ਆਮ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਸ ਕਰਕੇ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਚ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਜਾਣ ਦਾ ਨਾਂਅ ਤੱਕ ਨਹੀਂ ਲੈਂਦੇ। ਸਮਾਗਮ ਵਿਚ ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਜਸਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਧਾਇਕ ਪੀਟਰ ਸੰਧੂ, ਸਿੱਖ ਫੈਡਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਕਰਨੈਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਦਿਉਲ, ਵਿਧਾਇਕ ਨਰੇਸ਼ ਭਾਰਦਵਾਜ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸਨਮਾਨ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹ ਵੀ ਭੇਟ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ। ਇਸ ਮੌਕੇ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੇਰ ਬਰਾੜ, ਹੈਰੀ ਬਰਾੜ, ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਾੜ, ਬਲਦੇਵ ਧਾਲੀਵਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਦਰਜਨਾਂ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਸਨ।

Sarabjit case: Indian advocates file mercy plea with Zardari

Amritsar, April 29
A delegation of Indian advocates has filed a mercy petition for Sarabjit Singh, lodged in Kot Lakhpat Rai jail, before Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari.
Talking to The Tribune, BM Vinayak, a member of the delegation, here today said they also met Sarabjit Singh and Interior Minister Rehman Malik.
Vinayak, a member of the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council, said Sarabjit was lodged in a solitary confinement cell number E-7. Sarabjit had grown his beard and was wearing a skullcap, he said. "He was happy to see us and expressed his desire to meet his daughters," said Vinayak.
He said, "We took up Sarabjit's case with Interior Minister Malik during a lunch hosted by him. He informed us that Presidential pardon is the only way now. We requested him to arrange a meeting with Sarabjit and he happily obliged us."
He said they wrote the mercy petition citing humanitarian grounds. "Sarabjit has served 22 years in jail. His family too has suffered a lot. Further, his confinement will serve no purpose. But the President can grant him a pardon as a good will gesture to built cordial relations," said Vinayak adding that Malik had promised to follow up the matter with President Zardari.
Vinayak claimed that 33 Indians, including three women, were lodged in Kot Lakhpat Jail. "Two more Indians, excluding Sarabjit, have been sentenced to death. We have confirmed that 17 more Indians are in other district jails," said Vinayak.
The Interior Minister has extended visa for a year to all the 15 members of the delegation.
A resident of Bhikhiwind in Tarn Taran district, Sarabjit was convicted for the 1990 serial bomb blasts in Lahore and Multan in which 14 people were killed. Sarabjit was to be hanged in 2008. His execution was put off indefinitely following intervention of Pakistan Prime Minster Yousuf Raza Gilani.
However, his family members, especially his sister Dalbir Kaur, said that Sarabjit was wrongly convicted and the case was that of a "mistaken identity".

Issue summons to Facebook through e-mail: Court

New Delhi: A Delhi court hearing a civil case against various social networking sites for allegedly displaying objectionable content Wednesday ordered that summons be served to US-based social networking site, Facebook through e-mail.

Meanwhile petitioner's counsel Santosh Pandey moved an application seeking the government should be brought as a plaintiff for proper adjudication of the case as it is related to national issues.
Administrative Civil Judge Parveen Singh order that summons to Facebook should be served through e-mail within three days after observing that the firm has not appeared in the court as summons were not served against it.
The court was hearing a case filed by petitioner Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, an Islamic researcher linked to a website run by the Islamic Peace Foundation of India, who had sought removal of objectionable content from various websites.
Qasmi in a newly revised list submitted in last hearing April 12 has sought to prosecute - Facebook India, Facebook Inc, Google Inc, Orkut, Youtube Inc, and Blogspot.
Pandey has moved another application seeking review of the order of dropping the name of Orkut India, Youtube India and Blogspot India from the case. He said that the no objection given by him for deletion of the names of Google India and the other three parties was due to confusion.
He told the court that submissions made by Google India, Orkut India, Youtube India and Blogspot India that they were only subsidiaries of Google Inc, Orkut, Youtube and Blogspot were wrong.

The court has listed the matter for Thursday for further hearing.

Madras HC imposes costs of rs one lakh on petitioner

Chennai, April 23 - Annoyed with a petitioner for wasting the time of the court,the Madras High Court today imposed costs of Rs one lakh on a petitioner for seeking an issue of 'quo warranto' against Army Chief, General V K Singh, "without understanding the nature and concept of the same." A Division Bench, comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice M Venugopal, dismissed as withdrawn, the quo warranto petition filed by Dr S Vishwa Murti, founder chairman of 'Awareness on Anti Corrpution and Crime', a NGO. The bench said "further when the bench has required the petitioner's counsel to state the reason and necessity to issue a quo warranto, when admittedly the matter was entrusted to the CBI for inquiry, he was unable to answer." The petitioner had sought to know under what authority Gen Singh continued to hold the post and for a consequent direction to the Centre to dismiss him from office after allegedly violating the oath or affirmation he had taken at the time of his induction in the army. The petitioner had submitted that Gen Singh had allegedly told the media that he was offered a bribe but had not immediately brought to book those who had made the offer. Stating that the petitioner's counsel was also not able to reply when a specific question was put to him regarding the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of quo warranto, the bench said the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and bonafide intent for permission to withdraw the petition after it was heard for two days. The Judges directed that the amount imposed as costs be paid to 'Madras Society for Protection of Children', within two weeks failing which the District Collector would take steps to recover the amount.