CJI Surya Kant Refuses To Hear Urgent Plea On Police Brutality Against CJP Protesters | To The Point

[00:00:01]All right, our top story comes in from the top court of this country. The chief justice of India at the back of if you remember what he had said in terms of cockroaches and then an entire agitation started at the back of that word with the cockroach party. Well, the top court, the Supreme Court of this country has rejected a petition or a plea to hear uh which alleged the brutalities of the police, alleged brutalities of the police on protesters. The CGI Chief Justice of India says don't waste our time. We don't have the time to watch videos on social media of police brutalities. In this case, >> there are youngsters like corporate.

[00:00:48]They they don't get any employment. They don't have any place in profession. A word spoken in a courtroom. A movement born on the internet.

[00:00:59]And now a fresh confrontation with the Supreme Court.

[00:01:05]The cockroach controversy has come full circle.

[00:01:09]The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused urgent listing of a plea alleging police brutality against cockroach Jantaa party protesters.

[00:01:18]The petitioner wanted the court to look at videos of the crackdown.

[00:01:23]But the chief justice had a blunt response.

[00:01:28]Don't waste our time. Don't waste your time. We are not interested in videos.

[00:01:33]We don't have time to watch videos. And the CGI's remarks have now triggered fresh political backlash.

[00:01:42]Amadi party leader Somnad Bharti questioned whether courts could refuse to hear allegations of police brutality against protesters.

[00:01:52]Shiva UBT MP Priyanka Chhaturvedi responded with a sarcastic amazing and the cockroach Jantaa party's founder and spokesperson hit out at the CGI.

[00:02:05]The party which has been protesting over India's education system and demanding Dhmandra Pradhan's resignation takes its name from remarks made by Chief Justice Surya Khan earlier this year. In May during a hearing the CGI spoke of parasites attacking the system and compared unemployed youngsters to cockroaches saying some join the media some become activists and target every institution.

[00:02:32]The backlash was immitted. The remarks were seen as an attack on unemployed youngsters and then came the clarification.

[00:02:42]Days later, the chief justice said his remarks has been misqued and that he was referring to fake degree holders and bogus lawyers, not unemployed youth.

[00:02:54]But by then the word had escaped the courtroom and the internet had given it a new life. The cockroach jantaa party was born. What began as a parody page became a digital movement and soon the movement spilled onto the streets.

[00:03:10]Thousands gathered at Jantaar Mantar. A protest led largely by young people. And now the movement born from a courtroom remark is back before the courtroom.

[00:03:21]This time asking the Supreme Court to look at what happened to those who carried that word onto the streets.

[00:03:29]Bureau report India today.

[00:03:36]All right, joining me right now is Miss Indra Raja Singh, senior advocate Supreme Court former AG. Ma'am, thank you for taking the time out and joining us this evening. I I just want to connect with you. Um my first question Miss J Singh is concerning the latest that has come in from the top court of the country where they haven't they've rejected a plea regarding the alleged brutalities on protesters by the Delhi police stating that they don't have time to watch videos of these brutalities and that people should stop wasting their time and um also their own time.

[00:04:20]>> Yes. Uh look, I don't think any of us should for a moment believe that the judiciary doesn't watch videos. Um I know for a fact that there is a full-fledged publicity department existing within the Supreme Court of India and we all know that from time to time they issue press releases and for some time now we have known that there are several judges who have their own press publicity uh outreach uh in many different ways.

[00:04:53]Uh this just indicates that um everything that is ever said about the Supreme Court of India is well monitored not only by the institution but also by individual judges and I have reason to believe there have been former judges in the past now retired who have personally told me that yes we monitor everything in real time. There have been judges who've told me uh that uh even while sitting in court uh if they're sitting in court once especially the chief justice of India they know what's going on in court 10 court 12 court 16 etc etc. How does this happen? Communication now is is is so instantaneous. So uh it is not possible for me to believe that videos are not watched. That's as far as uh watching of videos goes. As far as the question of waste of time is concerned, I would like to say two things. Number one, I think uh ill thought of uh knee-jerk reaction type of petitions ought not to be filed in the Supreme Court of India. Well doumented, wellthoughtout, wellargued petitions are most welcome and then I would like to see any court say we will not hear it. uh that would be abdication of judicial functions and that is why you have noticed that today uh there has been a petition filed in the Delhi High Court by two very um >> if you will allow me to interject are you saying that this is abdication of judicial duty here >> correct me if I'm wrong >> I am saying for any judge to say we will not Here a wellthoughtout petition dealing with police brutality is an abdication of functions for the simple reason that article 32 provides direct access to the Supreme Court of India. Of course, you can also go to the high court. Okay, it's the question is not which court you go to. The question is there is a violation of mass violation of fundamental rights and that does require judicial notice. Okay. But I'm also saying that we as lawyers ought not to be filing illthoughtout petitions which are not substantiated with proper documentation. And it is in this context that I want to point out that the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar Association have filed well-drafted wellthoughtout good petitions in the Delhi High Court and therefore the Delhi High Court has been compelled to hear that case. I I use a strong word compulsion. There is a compulsion on the judiciary to hear these issues. Now you see Priti there's one thing I also would like to say to you. This is more about the protests.

[00:07:55]You know, there are laws in this country which tell us how to deal with so-called law and order situations, with so-called riots. Police are trained in quote unquote riot control. And one of the primary issues of law is what is the nature of the force that you use uh in order to quell a riot. Okay? I'm not talking about excess force. I'm just talking about force itself. And there are clear police manuals which say you cannot hit anyone above the waist. Now what is the reason for this? What I have seen from the videos that have been circulation and I make bold to say that it is my duty to watch every video that is circulating. Not only to watch it but to preserve it. Uh what I have seen is people being hit on the head. Now I would like to tell you even a nodding acquaintance with a bit of medical jurist prudence and forensic science will tell you that a hit on the head is incapacitating sometimes for life. Okay. It is a center of cognition. It is the center of what makes you speak. It is the center of make what makes you see. It is it is what your life is all about. And this is the logic behind the um direction to the police of law that you will not hit a person above the waist because you're going to destroy their vital or organs and for life. Okay.

[00:09:28]>> So this is a question that the Supreme Court should have seized upon and should have said this we will not allow this kind of mass violation of fundamental rights.

[00:09:40]>> Right. But Miss J Singh, you know, Miss J Singh, it's not an attempt for headline hunting. I'm not doing that.

[00:09:48]But I'll take you back where you say well drafted uh petitions especially where it comes down to protest uh is the judicial compulsion of the courts to entertain. You have been the ASG uh of this country. You are a reputed Supreme Court senior advocate. I would like to ask you in this particular case because our timelines are flooded with these videos. Would you think this would have warranted an urgent hearing?

[00:10:17]>> You know, not only would it have warranted an urgent and extraordinary hearing, I would say 24 hours of the day, night or day is not even important in a case of this kind. Yes, my answer is yes. But even more importantly, there is the so jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Okay. And we have seen repeatedly the Supreme Court taking suot cognizance of issues which concern the judiciary. It's time for the Supreme Court to take su motor cognizance of issues which concern you and me. Not just you and me, but people of the age group of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. These are the people that are being attacked today in the country. And yes, I do think the Supreme Court is under a duty to take slow motor caucuses of what's going on.

[00:11:04]That's my view. That's my opinion.

[00:11:08]>> I want you I Miss J Singh I want you to maybe elucidate for us because of course this was a petition that was turned down by the top court leave alone taking suamoto cognizance. Has there been past precedent in cases such as this a protest march which there has been uh you know alleged brutalities of the crackdown by the uh security forces. Is there past precedent of the court stepping in taking suomoto cognizance and >> the question is not whether there is precedent for taking soo cognizance of protest. question is is there past precedence for taking zoo cognizance even though the petitions are not well drafted and there is the courts have taken cognizance of letters okay which don't necessarily contain all the data that should be there on record they have then gone on to appoint their own commissions their own committees of social scientists to gather the evidence and place it before the Supreme Court of India okay this is the essence of what we call public interest litigation. So what has happened to that juristprudence of the Supreme Court? I am unable to understand and and you can't have a sumo jurisdiction which is so totally arbitrary. You take cognizance when it concerns let's say something like uh an attack on the judiciary and a perceived attack on the judiciary and not take cognizance of an attack on people of the country.

[00:12:44]>> Ma'am, it's a big thing that with what you've just said uh that it's the jurist prudence of the top court to take cognizance of a protest like this. Uh it is rather big. I want to um you know I I want to ask you u like you pointed out and you've you know said a lot with saying uh with you know how you've elucidated it. I want to ask you one question. You've studied the constitution very closely. There is a raging debate right now in the country on where does the right of protest end as per validated in the constitution and threat to national security begin?

[00:13:20]Because the march was illegal. Many people are saying yes you have a right to protest but the march to parliament was illegal. The cops had to crack down.

[00:13:29]>> Yeah.

[00:13:31]See uh illegal in what sense? Illegal in the sense that uh it did not have quote unquote permission right uh unlawful assembly. I presume that's what they mean by illegality. There is a difference between illegality and unconstitutionality. Let's be very very clear. I would go to the extent of saying sometimes you have a duty to protest. Forget a right to protest.

[00:13:57]That's at one level. We all have a right to protest. But at another level, we have a right, we have a duty to protest when we see our law enforcement agencies violating the law. In fact, if I were to go and join the protest, it would be at the point of time when the law enforcement agencies break the law.

[00:14:20]Okay? It is then your duty to self-defense is your duty. It is your duty to stop law enforcement agencies from breaking the law and this is what they have done. So apart from the question of uh legality, we need to also discuss the question of morality. Okay, we can't leave this debate at the level of oh it's illegal. Okay, if it's illegal, if I have violated uh section 144 order, now of course that section will change. But if I have violated that order, what can you do? Okay, you can pick me up, you can detain me, you can do what you want to do and then release me uh once the threat to uh your perceived threat is over.

[00:15:06]>> Can you then pick up a latte and break it on my head? No, you can't. So, you know, just using expressions like, oh, don't use excessive force. That's not good enough. It is the Supreme Court must understand why. What is the logic behind saying don't hit above the above the waist? Okay. It's my vital organs that we're talking about it >> cognition and this I think >> ma'am I'm going to ask you one quick question before we let you go. Yes. I'm going to ask you Miss J Singh one quick question before we let you go. The bar has always been very robust in the past championing various forms of protest. Do you think the bar is also failing in its duty?

[00:15:54]>> I have consistently said that the legal profession has not stood up to uh the attacks on the constitutions that we have seen uh in the past few years.

[00:16:07]But I have to say that I'm very pleased that the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar Association has taken up the issue collectively and gone to the high court. We are awaiting the results. We I for one will vote. You know the elections are coming. The Supreme Court virus association elections are coming and my vote will go to the candidate who says I stand by the constitution of India. I stand with students.

[00:16:40]>> All right ma'am. Uh thank you for taking the time out and joining us this evening. I highly appreciate it. Thank you. There I am joined right now by Mr. Rajes Dwi, senior advocate Supreme Court. Uh he's with us clearly to bring to you a contrarian point of view that Mr. Dedi has. Mr. Dwidi, you just heard the conversation uh with Miss Indra Raja Singh. Well, she's practically said this was there is constitutional legality, there is constitutional morality, there is juristprudence and there is a compulsion, a judicial compulsion on the part of the top court of the country to listen in to please which come in where protest is concerned. Leave alone take su cognizance.

[00:17:22]See if first of all if I say something about the issue which is involved that is neat paper leak I would certainly I'm in favor of drastic reforms so far as the selection processes are concerned because what I find is that it is not only neat but at several other state level examination also papers are being leaked there is so much of corruption recent Recently Supreme Court had set aside a selection process of involving teachers selection in the state of West Bengal when the TMC government MTA was in power and therefore we have as you are also aware about this all over the state different states this is happening. So something very serious has to be done.

[00:18:19]Some serious reforms have to be undertaken to ensure that this corruption ends. It is nothing but corruption.

[00:18:27]So far so good. But the question >> this is nothing to do with need. This is where yeah this has everything to do with protest and what the top court said today where it rejected a petition >> where it came down to alleged brutalities on protesters >> by saying we don't have to watch videos don't waste my time or yours >> see having said that I must that the Supreme Court does have power to take cognizance of matters involving liberty it can take also of suoto cognizance when it feels that the matter is such a great national importance and it doesn't involve disputed questions of fact but if the matter involves investigations disputed question of facts there are allegations counter allegations one side says that there is laty charge other side says 170 policemen have been injured stone pelting etc evidently there is breach of uh the process of law because no permission had been granted yet. If you want to march towards parliament on a time when the parliament is meeting to discuss issues of national importance then to march there is to disrupt.

[00:19:50]Therefore, the Supreme Court rightly refused to take cognizance of this matter because it there's lot of investigation to be done and Supreme Court is already overloaded with cases and if it keeps on taking this such kind of cases then in every state there will be protests and every state there will be some kind of a latty charge or sometimes breaking of the rule of law stone pelting etc. is happening all over the country. How many matters can be taken up just because it is happening in Delhi. Why rush to Supreme Court? Go to the high court.

[00:20:29]High Court is also there in Delhi. So, article 32 doesn't mean that Supreme Court must take cognizance of all such disputed matters which involve serious questions of fact. Videos are not one-sided. Petitions may be filed with one kind of videos. There are other kind of videos floating in the market. So, How will Supreme Court evaluate?

[00:20:52]Affidavit will be there on both sides.

[00:20:54]Videos will be on both sides. if you're speaking but I would s the argument could in all of this would also be because if you're talking about videos floating in the market there are multiple videos and if one looks at this particular plea one can entertain and look into what happened on the other side as well which is protesters turning against the police. How does that take away from video sir which clearly seem to suggest documented visually with the police and the rapid action force hitting protesters above the waist with lattes with uh you know tear gas shelves hitting them some of them very serious critical one of them was on a ventilator nowhere is one taking away from the fact that police personnel were also attacked by certain groups of protest protesters.

[00:21:50]But how does it stop the top court of the country to take cognizance because the top court of the country does look at videos >> to take cognizance of this petition which speaks of alleged brutalities which clearly seem to suggest that the code of that the police has violated at least by the visual documentary has violated that code by hitting protesters for you know number one above the waist and there are multiple videos of that.

[00:22:20]>> I'm sorry. There are multiple videos on both sides and this is not a matter which can be rushed to the Supreme Court straight away.

[00:22:26]>> I agree with you.

[00:22:27]>> They they should go to high court.

[00:22:29]>> I agree with you. But how does that take away from petition that there are videos of the other side?

[00:22:34]>> What is the problem in going to the high court for this? High court is also a constitutional court and high court can take cognizance of petitions and violations of liberty on this side or that side and do what it wants to do. It may constitute a sit. It may constitute a committee. But if everybody starts going to the Supreme Court which mean the aex court which must come and the end not every matter can be taken up under article 32 straight away.

[00:23:02]So we are finding today that in every sort of matter some people might feel that this matter but sir some people are saying this is not an every kind of matter. This involves a lot and you are right. There are a lot of people who were in the protest that were politically motivated.

[00:23:20]There were pockets where these protesters turned against the cops started to stone. But you can't deny the fact that a huge chunk of these protesters were organically who came out in solidarity in protestless young boys and girls students who were attacked brutally allegedly attacked brutally by the police. And therefore the urgency of the matter was such that the top court had to be approached. And there comes constitutional morality. There comes jurist prudence.

[00:23:53]>> Some people know sorry some people may think this is nothing to do with juristprudence. Jurist prudence says it is the discretion of the Supreme Court of India to decide. There's no juristprudence which compels that every matter which comes before the Supreme Court under article 32. the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India must take it on board and get into it and decide. So there are many people who may think that this is very important the students have been hit above the waist and so on. This is one part of it other may feel that well go to the high court also why trouble us with the videos how the Supreme Court judges will get into all this and there are so many other matters pending since ages which need to be decided. So it's ultimately Supreme Court's discretion. Not one section of the people today may feel that yes it they should have taken cognition as well. They are entitled to think like that.

[00:24:47]Another section may say that Supreme Court >> I'll ask you one quick question miss.

[00:24:52]>> Yes.

[00:24:52]>> Fair point. You have you have you have your legal argument. I want to ask you one question. So a lot of people sir uh I'm not comparing the two at all but a lot of people are looking at in 2012 where the Supreme Court took su motor cognizance of the protest where Nirva was concerned and that saw a ground swell of sorts of the youth which came out in protest. So not comparing but people are suggesting that if the courts could you know take suamo motor cognissance and there has been precedent there what stops the top court of doing it now.

[00:25:28]>> So well I myself said that if supreme court has authority even sumo to take now nirba has no comparison with this what is happening with nirba was just symbolic is something which is happening against women all over the country. How do you compare it with this kind of an event where an examination is >> No, I'm talking about the protest. So, I'm not comparing at all.

[00:25:50]>> So, ma'am, I believe >> I'm talking about the nature of protest.

[00:25:53]Understand?

[00:25:53]>> I saw a ground swell of the of students.

[00:25:56]This has also seen a ground swell of students.

[00:25:59]>> No, it's not a question of ground swell of students. Is the question of issue.

[00:26:04]It is the issue which decides not that if 5,000 10,000 people can be collected on an issue in India anywhere. It's not a big deal today with with a population of 1.40 140 crores. It's not a big deal. So therefore there's so many we can't compare with that the issue of nurba and the issue involved here something action has been taken fir has been filed 13 people >> at that time to remind you the top court of the country had taken sewer moto cognizance at the back of police crackdown on protesters not to do with what the issue was it was purely on the crackdown on protesters then >> no I'm sorry always the crackdown is one aspect of the episode it is the issue which sparks the episode so the everything has to be taken note of and ultimately what I'm saying I don't I'm not saying that supreme court could not have taken cognizance but if the supreme court feels that this is not one of it go to the high court I don't know why people are constitution court available in Delhi itself why don't you go to the high court why everybody should rush to the supreme court only for propaganda and politics and so politics should be kept out. What I'm finding is that in this whole protest now there are less students and more pe political people getting involved into it and the whole thing is being turned into an anti-BJP kind of a thing. Now that's the that is destroying the whole objective of reforms which should be put in the forefront rather than politicizing it.

[00:27:45]It should be reforms.

[00:27:50]All right sir, thank you for taking the time out and joining us evening. Uh appreciate it sir. Thank you so much.

[00:27:56]>> Thank you.

[00:27:56]>> All right viewers let's quickly dip into the latest news break that is coming in and that comes in from the Vanta hospital in Durao because let's [music] hop back.

[00:28:07]Sonam Wangchuk who has been moved to the Maidanta hospital from Sapdar Jan had met JP Nada and Jitendu Singh of the BJP and today [music] had said that he is willing to break his fast until and unless though one condition is fulfilled and that condition was that all cases against the protesting students be dropped. For now there is a delegation of opposition MPs and leaders that have uh sat on a dhana outside the madamea hospital because the opposition party members are not being allowed to meet Sonam Wangchuk. Now there is the Amadi party there, there's a Majadi party there and all of the MPs from these parties [music] had gone to meet Sonam Wangchuk who has said that he will give up his fast if this one precondition is fulfilled that all cases be dropped.

[00:29:01]Taking our viewers to the latest news break. Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gangjali Angmo has met opposition delegation outside the hospital. Sanjay Singh from the party spoke to the press.

[00:29:35]G1 I want to quickly cut across to my colleague Aishwara who's joining us.

[00:30:02]Ashwaryia Sonam Wangchuk after meeting JP Nada and Jatin Singh has given one prerequisite request and a condition to break his fast and that is all charges be dropped against the protesting students who were detained and there were police cases against them. It's a climb down by Sonam Wangchuk. Is the government also going to climb down?

[00:30:26]Yes, you know Piti from what I'm understanding at the moment there were detailed uh there was a lot of talk that in fact happened between Sonam Bakug JP Nada and Ji Singh and in that talk one of the things that the Bart Janapa party very clearly told Sonam Banguk is that they want him to move out and they want him to be healthy they want him to live and they also said that you just need to tell us what exactly you want and now we are seeing this letter which has come out PRI from what I'm understanding we will see most of those cases being taken back by the At least this is the kind of assurance that the bharti janka party will be giving sonatuk and in the next 24 hours you would see the bharti janka party also trying to meet him once again giving him an and tell him what exactly the bharti janka party has done from what I'm understanding in the next 24 hours we will see a climb down of sorts happening from the bharti janka's party side as well pre >> all right so the climb down viewers to uh you know elucidate for your better understanding ing sonam wanguk earlier had stuck to one big condition and that was the resignation of the education minister Dhmar since then he has given out multiple uh messages uh some of them suggesting that he's willing to end his fast if parliamentarians meet discuss uh the state of education in the country now his latest precondition is not the resignation of the education minister [music] but all cases be dropped against the protesting students and like my colleague Ashwaria is telling us that the government could very well in fact incorporate and agree to this condition of Sonam Wang. I want to bring in Moshmi who's going to throw some light on the politics behind it. Moshmi no Congress MPs in this delegation gone to meet Sonam [music] Wangchuk. somewhat party MPs, Ahmadi party. There there is a sense from the opposition now to also own the fact politically own the fact that they too tried to assuate Sonam Wangchuk and convince him to end his past.

[00:32:31]>> That's right. And you know uh perhaps uh we've seen a different sort of groupism as far as within the opposition is concerned. Priti if you look at the from a bird's eye point of view uh we saw this entire signature campaign happen in the parliament and uh perhaps Sanja Singh of the Amadi party towing a different line uh as the Amadi party's loggerheads with uh the congress even you know slamming the congress yesterday for uh you know diluting the entire protest of the students and trying to hijack it. So that's the politics that is folding within uh the opposition. But at large I uh I must reiterate that uh largely the opposition has been on the same lines as far as their demands are concerned which are the demands that the students are wanting. Now this is a big climb down uh as far as the resignation of Dhandra Pradhan is concerned and not u many asked from uh now Rahul Gandhi has said that is a non-negotiable demand. Now would the Congress uh go by what Sonam Banguk has said or would the Congress to a different line from the other opposition parties over the demand of Dhindra Pradhan will be the bone of contention tomorrow. We'll see those differences also uh you know pan out tomorrow uh whether a discussion in the parliament is just enough or whether uh whether or and compensation and taking back the cases or is it uh 0.0 to focus on Dhmin Pradhan's sacking >> right but you know Moshmi also and I'm going to come right back to you in just about a minute it's no longer really about Sonam Wanguk in the opposition there's a protest raging on and these protesters bareheaded by the cockroach Jantaa party say that nothing doing it has to be the resignation of the education minister at least for now they seem to be sticking to that demand uh stay with me Moshmi let's listen in to Sona Mangchuk's Peace of mindscally science.

[00:35:06]government protesters.

[00:35:26]Protesters atrocities.

[00:35:55]All right, viewers. So, is the government looking to offer an olive branch or has the government climbed down from its stand of no negotiations?

[00:36:04]Because Sonam Wanguk has climbed down.

[00:36:07]Here's more.

[00:36:24]As protests against education minister Dhindra Pradhan over need paper leagues rocked the national capital.

[00:36:33]The Narendra Modi government is reaching out to all the stakeholders.

[00:36:38]The government aims to hold a second round of talks with the cockroach Jantaa party but the protest leaders are demanding a neutral venue [music] this time.

[00:36:48]>> Union health minister JP Nadada had met a CJP delegation on Monday. That round did not yield any outcome.

[00:36:55]>> Is it possible for to have a rational now dialogue between government and and or is there too much of mistrust on both sides?

[00:37:01]>> No, absolutely not. We are open for uh dialogue and we are very rational people and we had suggested Jantaa Manta but keeping in view the security situation we have agreed to a neutral place.

[00:37:13]>> Sources say senior ministers JP Nada and Jatendra Singh also met educationist Sonam Wangchuk at the Madanta hospital in Gurugram last night. The activist remains on a hunger strike though the CJP leaders have urged him to end it.

[00:37:29]And now Wanguk has written to Nada and Jetendra Singh seeking an unequivocal assurance that none of the young protesters will face punitive or retaliatory legal action for participating [music] in the movement.

[00:37:42]He has also sought an assurance against any further use of excessive police force. Wangchuk says he will end his fast if the government gives that assurance. Without it, he says he will continue his hunger strike indefinitely.

[00:37:57]The government also offered debate in parliament but not under the rule demanded by the opposition which is also insisting on the education minister's ouster.

[00:38:27]Need paper.

[00:38:45]Rules 26.

[00:39:07]On Tuesday, the government approached Rahul Gandhi too for a parliament debate before the leader of opposition was dragged away by Delhi police from outside the PM's residence.

[00:39:19]Rahul was detained briefly at the Chhatrasal stadium before he was released.

[00:39:39]examination system or education systems reform.

[00:39:45]Three engagements, one message. The government wants to contain the protest before it spreads further.

[00:39:52]The question being asked in political corridors tonight is this a genuine olive branch or just crisis management.

[00:40:00]Bureau report India today.

[00:40:05]All right viewers the third day running complete wash out where parliament is concerned. Even the opposition has uh different demands of the government while a protest rages on in Jar Mantar with one unconditional demand and that's the resignation of the education minister. The same demand now echoed by the Congress party. I want to bring in Moshmi. Moshmi take us through on what's really going on in parliament because there is no other issue echoing on the streets and in the suns if cliches can be quoted.

[00:40:41]Oh absolutely uh Prii you know we've seen several disruptions in the upper house and the lower house. Uh we also saw meeting of ministers and uh ministers meeting uh meeting the speaker. We Akles Shadav had a long discussion with the Lok Sabha speaker and lots of protest erupting on uh at the Makardo and on the in the floor of the house with opposition sloganering and uh we saw opposition leaders marching in uh black attires as a sign of protest and uh and the dictatorship alleging the dictatorship of the Modi government. So uh one will have to wait and see that whether there is any ice breaking as far as the parliament is concerned because no business has been transacted for the past uh 3 days ever since the parliament really convened and uh importantly now the focus has come to the neat uh neat paper leak and also the atrocity uh alleged atrocities on students that happened and the bait in charging uh with Rahul Gandhi saying that there should be action action against the police personnels who indulged in such kind of acts. So uh whether there is a meltdown in terms of uh there is a demand for discussion under 267 that is an adjournment notice that you you in fact you in fact uh cancel all business of the house or whether the they stress on with the uh demand of resignation of Dhm Pradhan is a matter that will be sorted in the morning by the opposition leaders in the morning meeting.

[00:42:24]All right, Moshmi, thank you for joining us. We're going to continue to come back to you with the latest updates. Uh, viewers, word now coming in. Union Minister JP Nada will be briefing the media at 8:30 p.m. So, is the government also going to now suggest that all the cases again students will be dropped soam can end his fast? So all eyes right now on JP Nada speaking at 8:30 p.m. He will be speaking with the media and in all probability will be concerning his meeting with Sonam Wu. With that viewers, I'm going to get into a quick break, but we're going to leave you with all that did not happen once again in Parliament on day three. Thank you for joining us.

[00:43:13]Day three of monsoon session. Parliament remained paralyzed as the battle over the neat paper leak refused to die down.

[00:43:21]Black was the color of protest in parliament on Wednesday. Congress MPs turned up dressed in black accusing the government of silencing students and cracking down on demonstrations.

[00:43:33]In large numbers the opposition leaders standing right at the makadar protesting and saying that they want the the education minister Darbindu Pradhan to step down to resign. The top leaders of the opposition party all of them wearing black priyanka Gandhi Rahul Gandhi Akeshav all of them wearing black clothes and all of them standing now in solidarity. This is opposition unity that we can see. They are saying what they want at this moment is for their demands to be heard.

[00:44:09]students.

[00:44:19]Inside the Lok Sabha, the confrontation escalated within minutes. The opposition demanded an immediate discussion on meat and paper leaks. The Congress demanded education minister Dhindra Padan's resignation first for any debate. Sir demand very clear education minister SHOULD BE RESIGNED.

[00:44:40]THEN one then one more if you accept. IF YOU ACCEPT IF YOU ACCEPT ADJOURNMENT MOTION MOTION examination rules 26 >> [cheering] >> 67.

[00:45:28]The government hit back saying that it was ready for a full debate and accused the opposition of choosing disruption over discussion.

[00:45:39][cheering] India [cheering] softset sunset.

[00:46:20]SAMWADI PARTY CHIEF AKILLESH YADAV insisted the issue was bigger than politics and demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi must address the parliament. He even questioned that why was Congress allowed to speak but not Samwadi party accusing BJP and Congress of having an understanding.

[00:47:04]But neither side blinked. With slogans drowning out proceedings yet again, the speaker adjourned the house as the neat showdown continued to hold parliament hostage.