Delhi news: Ashok Swain, a professor of Indian origin living in Sweden, has got a big relief from the Delhi Highcart. The court canceled the Central Government’s order to cancel Ashok Swain’s Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card. Justice Sachin Dutta’s single bench considered the Central Government’s order of 30 July 2023 without any concrete reason. Ashok Swain, head of the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppasala University, Sweden, demanded the restoration of OCI card from the Delhi High Court.

In the petition, the decision of the Government of India was questioned. Swain said that India could not come to India for the last three years. The petition cited the serious illness of the 78 -year -old mother and the care of the only son. The petitioner was accused by the government of being involved in anti -India activities and propagating. The High Court found that any tweet, article or statement could not prove the objectionable activity of Swain. The petition said that criticism of government’s policies cannot be similar to inflammatory speech or anti -India activity.

Order to cancel OCI card canceled

It is worth noting that earlier also the Central Government had canceled Swain’s OCI card on 8 February 2022. On July 10, 2023, the High Court canceled the government’s order and described without sufficient reason. The court had directed that a detailed order be passed within three weeks.

Central government shocks from High Court

The central government issued a new order on 30 July 2023. Swain again challenged the government’s order in the High Court. Justice Sachin Dutta said in the judgment that the central government did not follow the clear instructions of the court and was limited to repeating the legal provisions. The court said that the order of 30 July 2023 is canceled. However, the officials will have the freedom to issue a show cause notice. Now it has to be seen what steps the central government takes further. At present, the way for Ashok Swain’s return to India has been cleared due to the decision of Delhi High Court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3QA- Iidtu0

Also read- Dreadful scandal in Delhi, a woman’s rotten corpse found inside the Diwan, could not be identified

Delhi news: The bail plea of ​​Khalid Saifi, accused in the ‘conspiracy’ case of 2020 Delhi riots, was strongly debated. Senior advocate Rebecca John appeared in the High Court on behalf of Khalid. He said that protesting in democracy cannot be terrorism. Justice Naveen Chawla and Shalinder Kaur were hearing on bail.

Rebecca John said, “If I join any performance in places like Jantar Mantar or Gandhi Peace Foundation, does it mean that I am plotting.” He said that it is the right of every citizen to protest and it is against the basic principles of justice to present it as a crime.

Khalid Saifi’s strong debate on bail

Rebecca John argued that no weapon was recovered from Khalid Saifi. No illegal funding was found. Nevertheless, he has been kept in jail for five years. He raised the question that when the Delhi Police did not find any concrete evidence against Khalid, then why delay in granting bail. The court was told that Khalid Saifi was on a wheelchair in the first appearance. He had plaster on his body. Rebecca John said that wheelchair and plaster shows what happened in custody with Khalid Saifi. Is it not enough to shock the court conscience?

‘Is it a crime to disagree with the government?’

Khalid Saifi’s lawyer said that if a WhatsApp chat or conversation is with the prosecution, it should be proved in the case. But it is not right to keep someone in jail for years by applying UAPA. He questioned whether it has now become a crime to disagree with the government in democracy. Explain that the High Court is hearing the bail petitions of other accused including Umar Khalid, Shajil Imam, Mohammad Salim Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Atar Khan, Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riot case. The next hearing will be held on 16 April.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlsmsqdvkx4

Also read- Delhi: Why did the car owner get bail in the hemp smuggling case? HC said the base of the decision