The Definitive Treaty of Peace, done at Paris, September 3, 1783.

The Definitive Treaty of Peace, done at Paris, September 3, 1783.

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.

Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Article 2:

And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary’s River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary’s River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

Article 3:

It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty’s dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

Article 5:

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty’s arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

Article 6:

That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Article 7:

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

Article 8:

The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Article 10:

The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.



French Declaration on the Rights of Man, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (August 26, 1789).

French Declaration on the Rights of Man, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (August 26, 1789).


Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:


  1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
  2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
  3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
  4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
  5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
  6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
  7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.
  8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
  9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner’s person shall be severely repressed by law.
  10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
  11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
  12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.
  13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.
  14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
  15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.
  16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.
  17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

English Bill of Rights, 1689

English Bill of Rights, 1689, An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and Settling the Succession of the Crown (Bill of Rights), 1689, 1 W. & M., c. 2 (Eng.).

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

  • Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
  • By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
  • By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
  • By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
  • By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
  • By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
  • By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
  • By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
  • And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
  • And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
  • And excessive fines have been imposed;
  • And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
  • And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
  • All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

  • That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
  • That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
  • That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
  • That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
  • That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
  • That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
  • That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  • That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
  • That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
  • That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
  • That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
  • That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
  • And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.”

“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.

And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the king’s person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.

All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

  1. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine [old style date] shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.



 Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article I

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

  1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier




penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

  1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
  2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

  1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
  2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

  1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
  3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

  1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.


  1. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


लाओ त्से लाओ त्से लाओ त्से lao 750x350

लाओ त्से

लाओ त्से चीन के एक महान दार्शनिक हुए। बिल्कुल अलग और बिलकुल जुदा।

उनकी बुद्धि से प्रभावित हो एक बार उनके राज्य के राजा ने उन्हें कहा कि आप ह्मारे राज्य के न्यायाधीश बन जाइये।

उन्होंने मना किया कि मैं इस लायक नहीं। आप गलत आदमी से संपर्क कर रहे हैं।

पर राजा के जिद करने पर लाओ ने कहा ठीक है मैं एक दिन के लिए राजा बनने के लिए तैयार हूँ। आप एक दिन में ही समझ जायेंगे क्यों मैं आपके समाज के योग्य नहीं।

लाओ के न्यायाधीश बनने के बाद पहला मुकद्दमा आया। एक चोर को पेश किया गया जिसने एक रईस के घर में चोरी की थी। रईस ने आकर कहा कि इसे जेल में डाल दो। लाओ ने सोच समझ कर फैंसला किया कि रईस और चोर दोनों को 6-6 माह की कैद होगी।

रईस फैंसले को सुन बड़े हैरान हुए पर वे राजा को जानते थे। वे राजा के पास गए और कहा देखिये मेरी कोई गलती नहीं है पर फिर भी मुझे सजा सुनाई जा रही है।

राजा ने लाओ को बुलाया और कारण पूछा।

लाओ ने कहा,” मैंने कहा तो था मैं इस लायक नहीं पर आप माने नहीं।”

“पर सजा क्यों दी?” राजा का प्रश्न था।

“महाराज ये अमीर है और इस जैसे अमीरों के दौलत जमा करने के लालच और लूट के कारण ही गरीब लोग चोर बनते हैं। दोनों अपराधी हैं तो दोनों को सजा दी।”

“इस तरह तो मैं भी अपराधी हुआ”; राजा ने सोचा और कहा,” आप ठीक थे लाओ, आप इस लायक नहीं।मैं आपको कार्यमुक्त करता हूँ।”

लाओ हँसते हुए बोले, ” महाराज,ये बुरे लोगों की दुनिया है, इस पर मुझ जैसे लोग शासन नहीं कर सकते। इसके लिए बुरे लोगों की ही जरूरत है।”

Impact and Effect of Social Media on Judiciary  Impact and Effect of Social Media on Judiciary judges 750x350

Impact and Effect of Social Media on Judiciary

It was once said by Lord Atkins that “Liberty does corrupt into license and is prone to be abused. Every institution is liable to be abused, and every liberty, if left unbridled, has the tendency to become a license which would lead to disorder and anarchy[1].” The statement holds equally true even today. With the democracy expending its wings and citizen becoming more and more evolved and updated regarding the functioning of Government and its functionalities. The functioning of Courts is also getting public day by day. The trials are reported in media due to which debates start, people engage into discussions and the judgments are made public even before the actual copies are delivered to the parties to the lis. This poses as a big challenge for Judges as well as Lawyers as they have to answer the public debates and discussions as well; though not directly but at least indirect answer almost becomes duty. It may be true that the Judges are immune from directly answering these unending public debates; however on the other side the lawyers are becoming more and more common face over the media channels while they not only discuss the arguments, merits and demerits of the case but also the evidence which is part of a matter. In December 2012, India witnessed a huge spur with the incident of Damini Rape Case went into public. People came on road and the reaction of the public was so sharp that Government was forced to form a special committee for reforms of law on the violence against women which resulted in amendment of law and creation of new acts. It can be easily imagined that the mind of the trial court Judge must have been under huge mental pressure due to such widely publicized case. Even before the trial actually started and statements of witnesses were recorded, the man who was accompanying Damini was seen on news channels giving verbatim account of the incident. Such things come into air from various sources most important of them is Press i.e. media and now most recently from past 5-6 years a new kind of media is surfacing which is known as Social Media. It may be defined as a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of [the worldwide web] which allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content[2]. Some of these popular virtual network tools are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, Google+ and Pinterest. Most popular among them is Facebook. Social media include virtual magazines, private blogs, discussion communities and many such forms wherein people can come together and share their ideas, pictures etc. The usage and comments over the social media engine spark debate and sometimes criticized as well. So far as the culpability is concerned social media is more vulnerable as the content is not regularized and unchecked before it is published and posted online. This increases risk of wrong reporting and thereby resulting into wrong opinions based upon wrong facts. On the one hand the content of newspapers and electronic media is controlled to some extent and regularized; this is not the case when the turn of social media comes. No regulations are in force to censure, pre-censure the contents. It is a known fact that traditional media sources like print media, electronic media are some how aware about the matters sub-judice and also know the penal provisions of wrong reporting etc. which are contemplated in the Contempt Law. But this is not so in the case of social media which has far reaching boundaries and even the authenticity of the original person who posted such content on the social media is not known in some cases. A person can come over the social media; impersonate himself as some other person and post content over the same. A recent example of the murder of wife of a Union Minister surfaced wherein some one hacked the twitter handle of the minister and posted impersonating himself as the minister that he is having love affair with some lady of Pakistan. This resulted in nation wide spark and his wife was found dead in a Delhi five star hotel only a couple of days after it. The far reaching consequences of social media can be imagined from this single incident. Though Section 66A of the Information Technology Act empowers prosecution agencies to take action against the persons; but that is also not immune and its constitutionality has been challenged and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as on today. Although many professional journalists communicate via social media, especially Twitter, social media empowers anyone to be a publisher. The ability to publish is therefore readily available to people who do not have a professional background in respect of the matters about which they are communicating and whose thoughts and opinions are not fact-checked by anyone. In a professional media system, checking takes place at multiple levels, eg. sub-editors, production editors and lawyers are often involved. In contrast, ‘citizen journalists’ do not have their work checked and are less likely to understand the nature of the legal constraints imposed by sub judice contempt. Indeed, they may even be unaware of the very existence of the offence. This lack of appreciation of their vulnerability to a prosecution for contempt means that the law of sub judice contempt does not exert a chilling effect on their willingness to communicate about a pending case. Accordingly, there is a far greater probability that sub-judice contempt[3] will be committed via social media than via the traditional media[4]. Hence, an immediate attention is required on this method of communication which has expended itself beyond countries due to the world wide presence of internet and no tools to curb over expression.

Social Media and Administration of Justice

With its increasing role and penetration in the society, time has come when its impact over the administration of justice is assessed as studies over the same are rare to find. Whilst it has been emphasized that penetration of media is important to some extent in the administration of justice; the impact of social media has not been analysed. Over the importance of media it was once said by Jeremy Benthem “in the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.”

            It is interesting to note that maximum time the interest of public is more in to criminal matters and not in less scandalous and matters of private nature like civil disputes. India has witnessed many such matters wherein the opinion of public derived by media campaign pressurised judiciary and administration. Everyone has a right to be presumed innocent unless he is proven to be guilty by any competent court[5]. However, the situation completely changes when an accused is separately tried outside courts in media, on social media platforms. Though Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression[6], however such freedom is also not unrestricted. This fact is noticed and taken care by organized media. But, this is not true in the case of Social Media, which is neither organized nor monitored as it creates unreasonable breach in the right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression. Right to have fair trial has been repeatedly held to be one of the fundamental rights by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases[7]. This right is as important as the freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and is held to be one of the most important and indefeasible rights as enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution[8]. Right to privacy is also one of the indefeasible rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India and has been held to be invaluable right[9]. While holding trial and protecting all of the above rights; a judge is obvious victim of burden and criticism[10] in some cases. Keeping a balance of all these rights and also keeping the faith of citizen in the Judicial System is one such cumbersome task. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that right to fair trial includes right to have a hearing from an impartial hearing and also having a calm environment which is free from unnecessary disturbances and crowd[11].

            On the other hand in a number of cases it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that media trial is interference into the administration of justice. In one such case it was observed as below:

“There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law[12].”

            It is to be seen that the handling of social media is far more difficult than actually handling only traditional media. First and formost difficulty can be of the jurisdiction. A person sitting in Pakistan can tweet from his twitter handle regarding alleged unfair trial given by any of the Indian Courts. It can be very well imagined that the Court can not extend its jurisdiction beyond Country. Hence, these challenges are imminent and required to be cater with. Second problem may be that it is actually very tough to actually identify as to who is contemnor in a case of any post over social media. A message circulated on social messaging applications like ‘Whatsapp’ is spreaded within minutes to end number of users as more than 7000 Crore messages are transmitted on daily basis only from this particular app. It is a cumbersome task to indentify the origin of such a message or comment which can be said to be sub-judice contempt. There are many such things which are to be noticed while assessing the impact of social media over the judiciary and administration of justice. Even there may be interesting case where any article or post is made over a private blog or social network profile which is only intended for a particular section of users and outside persons or users have no access to the same. Hence, it can be safely said that social media is a threat to the administration of justice and immediate attention to the same is required.

Are Judges Influenced By Parallel Trials?

            Trial by social media can not be separated from the broader term trial by media as social media is nothing but part of media. The object of media is to make public at large aware about happenings and same is being done through social media especially microblogging site like Twitter wherein the immediate inputs of the trial are even disclosed even from the court rooms where the trial is being conducted. It not only poses danger to the witnesses but can also hamper the undergoing investigation. The pressure to cope with all this has to be taken by the presiding officer who has to stand by the pressure of the trial which is built by the public at large through reporting from media and social media. It is to be seen as to whether a trial judge is some how influenced by such parallel trials. For that it is worth to quote by Justice Frankfurter from a celebrated judgement over the media trial by the U.S. Supreme Court[13]

“No Judge fit to be one is likely to be influenced consciously, except by what he sees or hears in Court and by what is judicially appropriate for his deliberations. However, Judges are also human and we know better than did our forbears how powerful is the pull of the unconscious and how treacherous the rational process … and since Judges, however stalwart, are human, the delicate task of administering justice ought not to be made unduly difficult by irresponsible print. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the functions which they exercise. It is a condition of that function – indispensable in a free society – that in a particular controversy pending before a court and awaiting judgment, human beings, however strong, should not be torn from their moorings of impartiality by the undertone of extraneous influence. In securing freedom of speech, the Constitution hardly meant to create the right to influence Judges and Jurors.”

            In another celebrated judgment on media trial Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from Viscount Dilhorne[14]:

“It is sometimes asserted that no judge will be influenced in his judgment by anything said by the media and consequently that the need to prevent the publication of matter prejudicial to the hearing of a case only exists where the decision rests with laymen. This claim to judicial superiority over human frailty is one that I find some difficulty in accepting. Every holder of a judicial office does his utmost not to let his mind be affected by what he has seen or heard or read outside the court and he will not knowingly let himself be influenced in any way by the media, nor in my view will any layman experienced in the discharge of judicial duties. Nevertheless it should, I think, be recognised that a man may not be able to put that which he has seen, heard or read entirely out of his mind and that he may be subconsciously affected by it. As Lord Denning M.R. said the stream of justice must be kept clean and pure. It is the law, and it remains the law until it is changed by Parliament that the publication of matter likely to prejudice the hearing of a case before a court of law will constitute a contempt of court punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.”

Hence, it is clear beyond doubt that the danger of judge being influenced by the media trial or outer opinions is even noticed and accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court also which in another celebrated judgment[15] observed that:

“No occasion should arise for an impression that the publicity attached to these matters (the hawala transactions) has tended to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and the basic principles of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused unless found guilty at the end of the trial”

Cardozo, one of the greatest Judges of the American Supreme Court, in his ‘Nature of the Judicial Process[16] referring to the “forces which enter into the conclusions of Judges” observed that:

“Even these forces are seldom fully in consciousness. They lie so near the surface, however, that their existence and influence are not likely to be disclaimed. But the subject is not exhausted with the recognition of their power. Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and the dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex instincts and emotion and habits and convictions, which make the man, whether he be litigant or Judge … … … There has been a certain lack of candor in much of the discussions of the theme or rather perhaps in the refusal to discuss it, as if Judges must lose respect and confidence by the reminder that they are subject to human limitations.. …”

Cardozo then stated in a very famous quotation:

“None the less, if there is anything of reality in my analysis of the Judicial Process, they do not stand aloof on these chill and distant heights; … The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course, and pass the Judges by[17]”.

            At last it can be said that the influence of media upon the mind of a judge is a practical reality and it is necessary to cope from it in order to administer justice. The judiciary, as the upholder and protector of the right to freedom of speech and expression of the media and has zealously safeguarded this right against invasion by other branches of the government, whenever it has occurred[18]. However, since the social media is unorganized and uncontrolled, the danger from it is imminent and is much graver than the danger from other branches of Government and other pillars of democracy. These self proclaimed citizen journalists are posing imminent danger to the court proceedings by not only reporting day to day proceedings from inside the court rooms but also interpreting the observations of courts and evidence in their own language and interpretations. It is to be noted that they are neither expert on facts nor on interpretation. Hence, a moral code of conduct is a need of hour wherein reasonable and permitted restrictions may be imposed upon the usage of social media in court matters. This may be an impossible task due to the beyond jurisdictional reach of the social media. But, even then it is necessary.

Should Judiciary Engage Themselves and Use Social Media:

            There has been a wider debate over this issue all over world and there are divergent views over the subject. Some experts say that this should not be done however, there are views on the contrary also which say that there is no harm in it. However, such usage should have certain restrictions which are necessary for administration of justice. An influenced judge can never administer impartial justice, hence, any extraneous influence should be avoided. The judicial conduct rules published for the Courts of England and Wales have prescribed that usage of social media and blogging is not prohibited, however they should use it in a careful manner as any view taken by them over such media can deter public confidence in the officer itself or the judiciary at a large[19]. However, there may be the case when the lawyer turned judge who was active on the social media. The question will be posed as to whether he should stop contacting with his ex-colleagues, seniors and lawyers once he becomes judge. An international study was undertaken by the International Bar Association wherein 60% participants said that it is not necessary to do so[20]. This can be said to be a positive sign as it is to be seen that no matter a judge is considered to be a super-human but at last he is a normal human and a human always need a social peer group. Hence, presence of a judge on social media should not create a problem for administration of justice, so far as reasonable precautions are taken over it like sharing of address, phone number, date of birth etc. Another very important matter which needs consideration is that there are instances wherein the judges have used social media during the court proceedings[21]. However, it is to be seen that such instances are not common and atleast this is true for the country like India, which is yet majorly dependent upon age old paper method and the use of high tech devices is not common. However, this may very well become a major challenge in the days to come. It has been reported by Thomson Reuters that over 90 verdicts were challenged between 1998-2010 in the United States of American only on the basis of jurors using internet based juror misconduct and in 28 cases new trial was ordered on this ground[22]. Hence it can be very well said that a judge may participate in electronic social networking, but as with all social relationships and contacts, a judge must comply with relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and avoid any conduct that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, or create an appearance of impropriety[23]. Courts can no longer blandly assume that the public understands their mission and the underlying rationale for trial procedures, and that trial outcomes will be inevitably accepted as valid judgments in the court of public opinion. Ultimately, courts will have to devise more persuasive arguments, and more effective strategies to promulgate those arguments, of the continued importance and validity of its core function in the justice system. Courts are institutionally reactive organizations that have been slow to adapt to the implications of new media on court operations generally and in the context of jury trials specifically. But just as new media is affecting changes in human cognitive processing, it is similarly affecting—in a dynamic and interactive way spurred by the use of new media—both public perceptions about the courts and courts’ own perceptions about themselves and their role in contemporary society[24].

            To ensure that pressure caused by Social Media is controlled and appropriate facts are presented before the public at large which also protects the image of the judiciary as an institution amongst public; I suggest that the Courts should themselves come to the social media platforms officially and give proper updates of the matters and regarding the decisions which have created the interest of public in it. There are various Courts all around the globe which have started this and the important briefings, judgments and statements are being released on it. I suggest similar measure in India. I further suggest that a model code of conduct for usage of social media by the Judges as well as Lawyers when they are reporting the Court matters should be framed and made operational. Never-the-less the most important fact is the awareness of the society itself which should use self restraint while using social media against the judicial system as it creates havoc amongst the society and faith of public over judiciary is shattered.

[1] Express Newspapers Vs. U.O.I., (1997) 1 SCC 133. See also re:Harijai Singh and re:Vijayakumar, AIR 1997

SC 73 wherein the Supreme Court of India has observed that the freedom of press is regarded as “the mother

of all liberties in a democratic society”.

[2] Andreas M Kaplan and Michael Haenlein, ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media’ (2010) 53(1) Business Horizons 61.

[3] The law of sub judice contempt is concerned to ensure that all the main players in a court case are not improperly influenced or interfered with while the case is pending, including judges, parties and witnesses.

[4] Pg 5, Juries and Social Media byAssociate Professor Jane Johnston, Professor Patrick Keyzer, Geoffry Holland, Professor Mark Pearson, Sharon Rodrick and Professor Anne Wallace

[5] Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Article 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

[6] Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India

[7] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat: 2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 448, M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra: 1978(3) SCC 544, Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, 2011(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 121, Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P, 2011(8) SCC 300

[8] Life Insurance Corporation of India v.Manubhai D Shah (1992 (3) SCC 637), Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515, Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras : 1950 SCR 594

[9] Malak Singh etc. v. State of Punjab & Haryana & Ors., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 760; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 207; R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 1995 Supreme Court 264; PUCL v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 568; Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 SCC 296; Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 ; People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2363 ; District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad & Anr. v. Canara Bank & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 496 ; Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 551; and Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1974

[10] Media Efforts Flushed by Sunken Judiciary: Damini Case Juvenile Verdict, Dr. Shefali Tiwari and Prof. Ruchita Shandilya, published in Pacific Business Review International, Volume 6, Issue 5, November 2013

[11] Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P 2008(3) SCC 602

[12] State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi : 1997 (8)SCC 386

[13] John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida (1946) 328 US 331)

[14] Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P.) Ltd., 1988(4) SCC 592

[15] Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India, 1996(6) SCC 354

[16]Lecture IV, Adherence to Precedent, The Subconscious Element in the Judicial Process,1921, Yale University Press

[17] As extracted from the 200th report of Law Commission of India, 2006

[18] The Fourth K.S. Rajamony Memorial Public Law Lecture on ‘The Constitution, the media and the Courts’ (Kochi – August 9, 2008) By Hon’ble Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Ex. Chief Justice of India

[19] Guide to Judicial Conduct, March 2013, Judiciary of England and Wales

[20] Page 15, Online Social Networking Report, 2012 issued by International Bar Association, U.K.

[21] Jurors’ and Attorneys’ Use of Social Media During Voir Dire, Trials, and Deliberations, A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Meghan Dunn, Federal Judicial Center, May 1, 2014

[22] Pg 4,  Jurors 24/7: the Impact of New Media on Jurors, Public Perceptions of the Jury System, and the American Criminal Justice System by Nicole L. Waters, Senior Research Associate, National Center for State Courts & Paula Hannaford-Agor, Director, Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts.

[23] Formal Opinion No. 462, American Bar Association, February 21, 2013

[24] Pg 11,  Jurors 24/7: the Impact of New Media on Jurors, Public Perceptions of the Jury System, and the American Criminal Justice System by Nicole L. Waters, Senior Research Associate, National Center for State Courts & Paula Hannaford-Agor, Director, Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts.

अफ़लातून महाराजाधिराज ‘सूरजमल’ सिनसिनवार surajmal अफ़लातून महाराजाधिराज ‘सूरजमल’ सिनसिनवार surajmal 750x350

अफ़लातून महाराजाधिराज ‘सूरजमल’ सिनसिनवार

एशियाई प्लेटो चिरकाल कूटनीतिज्ञ अफ़लातून महाराजाधिराज ‘सूरजमल’ सिनसिनवार, भरतपुर (लोहागढ) को बलिदान दिवस पर सत-सत नमन; महाराजा सुरजमल विशेषमुगलों के आक्रमण का प्रतिकार करने में उत्तर भारत में जिन राजाओं की प्रमुख भूमिका रही है, उनमें भरतपुर (राजस्थान) के महाराजा सूरजमल जाट कानाम बड़ी श्रद्धा एवं गौरव से लिया जाता है। उनका जन्म 13 फरवरी, 1707 में हुआ था। ये राजा बदनसिंह ‘महेन्द्र’ के दत्तक पुत्र थे। उन्हेंपिता की ओर से वैर की जागीर मिली थी। वे शरीर से अत्यधिक सुडौल, कुशल प्रशासक, दूरदर्शी व कूटनीतिज्ञ थे। शायद भारत का इकलौता ऐसा महाराजा जिसका खजांची एक दलित हुआ| उन्होंने 1733 में खेमकरण सोगरिया की फतहगढ़ी पर हमला कर विजय प्राप्त की।इसके बाद उन्होंने 1743 में उसी स्थान पर भरतपुर नगर की नींव रखी तथा 1753 में वहां आकर रहने लगे।महाराजासूरजमल की जयपुर के महाराजा जयसिंह से अच्छी मित्रता थी। जयसिंह की मृत्यु के बाद उसकेबेटों ईश्वरी सिंहऔर माधोसिंह में गद्दी के लिए झगड़ा हुआ। सूरजमल बड़े पुत्र ईश्वरी सिंह के, जबकि उदयपुर के महाराणा जगतसिंह छोटे पुत्र माधोसिंह के पक्ष में थे।मार्च 1747 में हुए संघर्ष में ईश्वरी सिंह की जीत हुई। आगे चलकर मराठे, सिसौदिया, राठौड़ आदि सात प्रमुख राजा माधोसिंह के पक्ष में होगये। ऐसे में महाराजा सूरजमल ने 1748 में 10,000 सैनिकों सहित ईश्वरी सिंह का साथ दिया और उसे फिर विजय मिली। इससे महाराजा सूरजमल का डंका सारे भारत में बजने लगा।मई 1753 में महाराजा सूरजमल ने दिल्ली और फिरोजशाह कोटला पर अधिकार कर लिया। दिल्ली के नवाब गाजीउद्दीन ने फिर मराठों को भड़का दिया। अतः मराठों ने कई माह तक भरतपुर में उनके कुम्हेर किले को घेरे रखा। यद्यपि वेपूरी तरह उस पर कब्जा नहीं कर पाये औरइस युद्ध में मल्हारराव का बेटा खांडेराव होल्कर मारा गया। आगे चलकर महारानी किशोरी ने सिंधियाओं की सहायता से मराठों और महाराजा सूरजमल में संधि करा दी।उन दिनों महाराजा सूरजमल की शक्ति अपने चरमोत्कर्षपर थी। कई बार तो मुगलों ने भी सूरजमल की सहायता ली। मराठा सेनाओं के अनेक अभियानों में उन्होंने ने बढ़-चढ़कर भाग लिया; पर किसी कारण से सूरजमल और सदाशिव भाऊ में मतभेद हो गये। इससे नाराज होकर वे वापस भरतपुर चले गये।14 जनवरी, 1761 में हुए पानीपत के तीसरे युद्ध में मराठा शक्तिओं का संघर्ष अहमदशाह अब्दाली सेहुआ। इसमें एक लाख में से आधे मराठा सैनिक मारे गये। मराठा सेना के पास न तो पूरा राशन था और न हीइस क्षेत्र की उन्हें विशेष जानकारी थी। यदि सदाशिवभाऊ के महाराजा सूरजमल से मतभेद न होते, तो इस युद्ध का परिणाम भारत और हिन्दुओं के लिए शुभ होता। इसके बाद भी महाराजा सूरजमल ने अपनी मित्रता निभाई। उन्होंने शेष बचे घायल सैनिकों के अन्न, वस्त्र और चिकित्सा का प्रबंध किया। महारानी किशोरी ने जनता से अपील कर अन्न आदि एकत्र किया। ठीक होने पर वापस जाते हुए हर सैनिक को रास्ते केलिए भी कुछ धन, अनाज तथा वस्त्र दिये। अनेक सैनिक अपने परिवार साथ लाए थे। उनकी मृत्यु के बाद सूरजमल ने उनकी विधवाओं को अपने राज्य में ही बसा लिया। उन दिनों उनके क्षेत्र में भरतपुर के अतिरिक्त आगरा, धौलपुर, मैनपुरी, हाथरस, अलीगढ़, इटावा, मेरठ, रोहतक, मेवात, रेवाड़ी, गुड़गांव और मथुरा सम्मिलित थे। मराठों की पराजय के बाद भी महाराजा सूरजमल ने गाजियाबाद, रोहतक और झज्जर को जीता। वीर की सेज समरभूमि ही है। 25 दिसम्बर, 1763 को नवाब नजीबुद्दौला के साथ हुए युद्ध में गाजियाबाद और दिल्ली के मध्य हिंडन नदी के तट पर महाराजा सूरजमल ने वीरगति पायी…!!

बागरु (मोती-डूंगरी) की लड़ाई में मुग़ल-मराठा-राजपूत-होल्कर की 7 सेनाओं को इकट्ठा हरा प्रिंस सूरज कहलाये थे महाराजा सूरजमल:

आमेर (जयपुर) राजघराने की राजगद्दी बाबत राजपूत राजा ईश्वरी सिंह और उनके भाई माधो सिंह की लड़ाई थी बागरू की लड़ाई|

इस पर राजा ईश्वरी सिंह ने ब्रजराज बदन सिंह को कुछ यूँ सन्देश भिजवाया:

देषि देस को चाल ईसरी सिंह भुवाल नैं।

पत्र लिख्यौ तिहिकाल बदनसिंह ब्रजपाल कौ।।

करी काज जैसी करी गुरुडध्वज महाराज।

पत्र पुष्प के लेते ही थे आज्यौ ब्रजराज।।

आयौ पत्र उताल सौं ताहि बांचि ब्रजयेस।

सुत सरज सौं तब कहौ थामि ढुढाहर देस।|

इस पर ब्रजराज ने अपने प्रिन्स सूरज के नेतृत्व में 20000 सेना भेजी|

युद्ध-मैदान कुछ यूँ सजा:

20-21-22 अगस्त 1748 तीन दिन की इस ऐतिहासिक लड़ाई में एक तरफ तीन लाख तीस हजार (330000) सैनिकों से सजी मुगल-मराठा पेशवाओं और माधो सिंह के पक्ष वाले राजपूतों की 7-7 सेनायें, तो दूसरी तरह राजा ईश्वरी सिंह के पक्ष में सजी मात्र बीस हजार (20000) की कुशवाहा राजपूत और हरयाणा-ब्रज रियासत भरतपुर की सिर्फ 2 सेनाएं।

एक तरफ छोटे आकार के सैनिक तो दूसरी तरफ ये 7-7 फुटिये लम्बे-चौड़े 150-150 किलो वजनी भरतपुर जाट सेना के सैनिक। एक तरफ अस्सी हजार (80000) की टुकड़ी तो दूसरी तरफ मात्र दो हजार (2000) की टुकड़ी उनको गुर्रिल्ला वार में छका-छका के पीटती हुई। एक तरफ गाजर-मूली की तरह कटते सैनिक तो दूसरी तरफ पचास-पचास (50-50) को मारने वाला एक-एक जाट और कुशवाहा राजपूत सैनिक। एक तरफ 7-7 राजा तो दूसरी तरफ 7 फुटी 200 किलो वजनी अकेले भरतपुर प्रिन्स सूरज। और यह लड़ाई चली भी पूरे तीन दिन थी और वो भी बरसाती तूफानों में अरावली के रेतीले मैदानों और पथरीले पहाड़ों के बीच सरे-मैदान लड़ी गई थी। कुल मिला के क्या ‘ट्रॉय’, क्या ‘ग्लैडिएटर’, क्या ‘स्पार्टा’, क्या ‘300’ और क्या ‘बाहुबली’; इनसे भी कालजयी थिएट्रिकल दृश्य उस युद्धे-मैदान सजा था| कुशवाहा राजपूत सेनापति दूसरे दिन वीरगति को प्राप्त हुआ तो अब सारा दारोमदार अकेले सूरज-सुजान के कन्धों पर आन पड़ा| और तब वो दुदुम्भी मची थी कि रणचंड़ी भी स्तब्ध देखती रह गई और अंत में माधो सिंह की जिद्द की हार हुई और इस प्रकार सूरज-सुजान ने राजा ईश्वरी सिंह आमेर की गद्दी पर विराजमान रखवाये| धन्य है यह धरा, धन्य है वो कायनात, जिसने उस अफलातून को साक्षात् धरती पर चलते हुए देखा, तांडव करते हुए देखा| जिस दौर में राजपूत राजा मुगलों से अपनी बहन-बेटियों के रिश्ते करके जागीररें बचा रहे थे. उस दौर में यह बाहुबली जाट महाराजा अकेला मुगलों से लोहा ले रहा था. सूरजमल को स्वतंत्र हिन्दू राज्य बनाने के लिए भी जाना जाता हैं। तो अपनी यायावरी-यारी निभाने हेतु ठाकुर साहब के आदेश पर कुंवर सूरजमल ने जब 3 लाख 30 हजार सैनिकों से सजी 7-7 सेनाओं {पेशवा मराठा, मुग़ल नवाब शाह, राजपूत (राठौर, सिसोदिया, चौहान, खींची, पंवार)} को मात्र 20 हजार सैनिकों के दम पर बागरु (मोती-डुंगरी), जयपुर के मैदानों में धूळ-आँधी-बरसात-झंझावात के बीच 3 दिन तक गूंजी गगनभेदी टंकारों के मध्य हुए महायुद्ध में अकेले ही पछाड़ा तो समकालीन कविराज कुछ यूँ गा उठे:

ना सही जाटणी ने व्यर्थ प्रसव की पीर,

गर्भ से उसके जन्मा सूरजमल सा वीर|

सूरजमल था सूर्य, होल्कर उसकी छाहँ,

दोनों की जोड़ी फबी युद्ध भूमि के माह||

जाटों से संधि कर, जाटों को ही धोखे में रख दिल्ली अफगानों (अब्दाली) से जीत, जाट राज्य को सौंपने की अपेक्षा मुग़लों को ही देने की छुपी योजना रखने वाले महाराष्ट्री पेशवाओ की चाल को अपनी कुटिल बुद्धि से पहचान, अपने आप पर पेशवाओं द्वारा बिछाए बंदी बनाने के जाल को तोड़ निकल आने वाला वो सूरज सुजान, जब ले सेना रण में निकलता था तो धुर दिल्ली तक मुग़ल भी कह उठते थे:

तीर चलें, तलवार चलें, चलें कटारें इशारों तैं,

अल्लाह-मियां भी बचा नहीं सकदा, जाट भरतपुर आळे तैं!

ऐसी रुतबा-ए-बुलंदी थी लोहागढ़ के उस लोहपुरुष की!

खैर, उनका बुरा सोचने वाले महाराष्ट्री पेशवाओं को पानीपत में सबक मिल ही गया था| और महाराजा सूरजमल ने फिर भी अपनी राष्ट्रीयता निभाते हुए, पेशवाओं के दुश्मन (अब्दाली) से दुश्मनी मोल लेते हुए, पानीपत के घायलों की मरहमपट्टी कर, सकुशल महाराष्ट्र छुड़वाया|

ऐसी नींव और दुर्दांत दुःसाहस की परिपाटी रख के गया था वो सिंह-सूरमा कि आगे चल 1805 में जिनके राज में सूरज ना छिपने की कहावतें चलती थी उन अंग्रेजों को आपके वंशज महाराजा रणजीत सिंह (हमारे यहाँ दो रणजीत हुए हैं, एक ये वाले और दूसरे पंजाबकेसरी महाराज रणजीत सिंह) ने 1-2 नहीं बल्कि पूरी 13 बार पटखनी दी थी और इतना खून बहाया था गौरों का कि:

“हुई मसल मशहूर विश्व में, आठ फिरंगी, नौ गौरे!

लड़ें किले की दीवारों पर, खड़े जाट के दो छोरे!”

और क्योंकि इस भिड़ंत ने अंग्रेजों के इतने शव ढहाये थे कि कलकत्ते में बैठी अंग्रेजन लेडियां, शौक मनाती-मनाती अपने आँसू पोंछना भी भूल गई थी| उनका विलाप करना और शोक-संतप्त होना पूरे देश में इतना चर्चित हुआ था कि कहावत चली कि:

“लेडी अंग्रेजन रोवैं कलकत्ते में”।

आपने कभी देखा हो तो दोनों रणजीतों का जिक्र आज तलक भी जाटों के यहां जब ब्याह के वक्त लड़के को बान बिठाया जाता है तो निम्न गीत गा के किया जाता है:

“बाज्या हो नगाड़ा म्हारे रणजीत का!”

जी हाँ, यह नगाड़ा वाकई में बाजा था, जिसने अंग्रेजों का भ्रम तोड़ के रख दिया था|

महाराजा सूरजमल का जन्म 13 फरवरी 1707 में हुआ. यह इतिहास की वही तारीख है, जिस दिन हिन्दुस्तान के बादशाह औरंगजेब की मृत्यु हुई थी. मुगलों के आक्रमण का मुंह तोड़ जवाब देने में उत्तर भारत में जिन राजाओं का विशेष स्थान रहा है, उनमें राजा सूरजमल का नाम बड़े ही गौरव के साथ लिया जाता है. उनके जन्म को लेकर यह लोकगीत काफ़ी प्रचलित है.

‘आखा’ गढ गोमुखी बाजी, माँ भई देख मुख राजी.

धन्य धन्य गंगिया माजी, जिन जायो सूरज मल गाजी.

भइयन को राख्यो राजी, चाकी चहुं दिस नौबत बाजी.’।

वह राजा बदनसिंह के पुत्र थे. महाराजा सूरजमल कुशल प्रशासक, दूरदर्शी और कूटनीति के धनी सम्राट थे. सूरजमल किशोरावस्था से ही अपनी बहादुरी की वजह से ब्रज प्रदेश में सबके चहेते बन गये थे. सूरजमल ने सन 1733 में भरतपुर रियासत की स्थापना की थी. 1753 तक महाराजा सूरजमल ने दिल्ली और फिरोजशाह कोटला तक अपना अधिकार क्षेत्र बढ़ा लिया था. इस बात से नाराज़ होकर दिल्ली के नवाब गाजीउद्दीन ने सूरजमल के खिलाफ़ मराठा सरदारों को भड़का दिया. मराठों ने भरतपुर पर चढ़ाई कर दी. उन्होंने कई महीनों तक कुम्हेर के किले को घेर कर रखा. मराठा इस आक्रमण में भरतपुर पर तो कब्ज़ा नहीं कर पाए, बल्कि इस हमले की कीमत उन्हें मराठा सरदार मल्हारराव के बेटे खांडेराव होल्कर की मौत के रूप में चुकानी पड़ी. कुछ समय बाद मराठों ने सूरजमल से सन्धि कर ली।

लोहागढ़ किला:-

सूरजमल ने अभेद लोहागढ़ किले का निर्माण करवाया था, जिसे अंग्रेज 13 बार आक्रमण करके भी भेद नहीं पाए. मिट्टी के बने इस किले की दीवारें इतनी मोटी बनाई गयी थी कि तोप के मोटे-मोटे गोले भी इन्हें कभी पार नहीं कर पाए. यह देश का एकमात्र किला है, जो हमेशा अभेद रहा.।

तत्कालीन समय में सूरजमल के रुतबे की वजह से जाट शक्ति अपने चरम पर थी. सूरजमल से मुगलों और मराठों ने कई मौको पर सामरिक सहायता ली. आगे चलकर किसी बात पर मनमुटाव होने की वजह से सूरजमल के सम्बन्ध मराठा सरदार सदाशिव भाऊ से बिगड़ गए थे..

उदार प्रवृति के धनी

पानीपत के तीसरे युद्ध में मराठों का संघर्ष अहमदशाह अब्दाली से हुआ. इस युद्ध में हजारों मराठा योद्धा मारे गए. मराठों के पास रसद सामग्री भी खत्म चुकी थी. मराठों के सम्बन्ध अगर सूरजमल से खराब न हुए होते, तो इस युद्ध में उनकी यह हालत न होती. इसके बावजूद सूरजमल ने अपनी इंसानियत का परिचय देते हुए, घायल मराठा सैनिकों के लिए चिकित्सा और खाने-पीने का प्रबन्ध किया.

भरतपुर रियासत का विस्तार:-

उस समय भरतपुर रियासत का विस्तार सूरजमल की वजह से भरतपुर के अतिरिक्त धौलपुर, आगरा, मैनपुरी, अलीगढ़, हाथरस, इटावा, मेरठ, रोहतक, मेवात, रेवाड़ी, गुडगांव और मथुरा तक पहुंच गया था. वजीर सफदरजंग के शत्रु मीरबख्शी गाजीउद्दीन खां के नेतृत्व में मराठा-मुगल-राजपूतों की सम्मिलित शक्ति सन् 1754 में सूरजमल के छोटे किले कुम्हेर तक को भी नहीं जीत पाई। सन् 1757 में नजीबुद्दौला द्वारा आमंत्रित अब्दाली भी अपने अमानवीय नरसंहार से सूरजमल की शक्ति को ध्वस्त नहीं कर सका। महज 56 वर्ष के जीवन काल में इन्होंने आगरा और हरियाणा पर विजय प्राप्त करके अपने राज्य का विस्तार ही नहीं किया बल्कि प्रशासनिक ढाँचे में भी उल्लेखनीय बदलाव किये।

युद्ध के मैदान में ही मिली इस वीर को वीरगति:-

हर महान योद्धा की तरह महाराजा सूरजमल को भी वीरगति का सुख समरभूमि में प्राप्त हुआ. 25 दिसम्बर 1763 को नवाब नजीबुद्दौला के साथ हिंडन नदी के तट पर हुए युद्ध में सूरजमल वीरगति को प्राप्त हुए. उनकी वीरता, साहस और पराक्रम का वर्णन सूदन कवि ने ‘सुजान चरित्र’ नामक रचना में किया है.

भारत के इतिहास को गौरवमयी बनाने का श्रेय सूरजमल जैसे निर्भीक अजय वीरो को ही जाता हैं।

या तो हरदौल को छोड़, वर्ना दिल्ली छोड़”:

हरदौल को मुग़ल बादशाह की कैद से छुड़वाने का किस्सा इस प्रकार है:

दिल्ली मुग़ल दरबार के एक ब्राह्मण दरबारी की बेटी हरदौल को (उसकी माँ की पुकार पर) मुग़ल बादशाह की कैद से छुड़वाने हेतु, महाराजा सूरजमल ने दिल्ली के बादशाह अहमदशाह को कहलवाया कि, “या तो हरदौल को छोड़, वर्ना दिल्ली छोड़!”

अहमदशाह ने उल्टा संदेशा भेजा, “सूरजमल से कहना कि जाटनी भी साथ ले आये,वो हमसे  पंडितानी तो क्या छुड़वाएगा!”

इस पर लोहागढ के राजदूत वीरपाल गुर्जर वहीँ बिफर पड़े और वीरगति को प्राप्त होते-होते कह गए, “तू तो क्या जाटनी लैगो, पर तेरी नानी याद दिला जैगो, वो पूत जाटनी को जायो है।”

इस पर सूरजमल महाराज ललकार उठे, “अरे आवें हो लोहागढ़ के जाट, और दिल्ली की हिला दो चूल और पाट!”

और जा गुड़गांव में डेरा डाल, बादशाह को संदेश पहुंचवाया, “बादशाह को कहो अपनी बेटी की इज्जत बचाने को जाट सूरमे आये हैं, और साथ में जाटनी (महारानी हिण्डौली) को भी लाये हैं, अब देखें वो जाटनी ले जाता है या हमारी बेटी को वापिस देने खुद घुटनों के बल आता है।”

और मुग़ल सेना पर महाराजा सूरजमल का कहर ऐसा अफ़लातून बन कर टूटा कि मुग़ल कराह उठे:

तीर चलें,तलवारें चलें, चलें कटारें इशारों तैं,

अल्लाह मियां भी बचा नहीं सकदा, जाट भरतपुर आळे तैं।

और इस प्रकार दिल्ली बादशाह ने ब्राह्मण की बेटी भी वापिस करी और एक महीने तक जाट महाराज की मेहमानवाजी भी करी।

पूरा किस्सा इस लिंक से पढ़ें:

हरियाणा पंचायती राज अधिनियम में संशोधन और आधे हरियाणा के अधिकारों की हत्या  हरियाणा पंचायती राज अधिनियम में संशोधन और आधे हरियाणा के अधिकारों की हत्या Haryana panchayat election 750x350

हरियाणा पंचायती राज अधिनियम में संशोधन और आधे हरियाणा के अधिकारों की हत्या

हरियाणा सरकार ने बहुत गाजे बाजे के साथ हरियाणा पंचायती राज अधिनियम में सन 2020 में संशोधन किया था। इस संशोधन के बाद भाजपा और हमारी देसी जजपा ने खूब राजनीति की कि सरकार ने महिलाओं और पिछड़ा वर्ग के अधिकारों की रक्षा करने के लिए यह संशोधन पारित किया है और विपक्ष खासकर कांग्रेस इसका नाजायज विरोध कर रही है। जबकि इसका कोई विरोध नहीं किया गया। अधिनियम बिलकुल बिना विरोध के पारित हुआ। राजनीती का विषय इस बात को बनाया गया कि कांग्रेस के वरिष्ठ नेता श्री करण सिंह दलाल के सुपुत्र दीपकरण दलाल ने इस मामले में कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की, जबकि यह याचिका उनके क्लाइंट्स ने दायर की थी और उन्होंने अधिवक्ता का अपना फर्ज निभाने के लिए केवल उनको रिप्रेजेंट किया। खैर इस विषय पर मैं टेलीविजन पर बहुत सी डिबेट्स कर चुका हूँ। सरकार ने खुद कोर्ट में स्टेटमेंट दी कि हम चुनाव नहीं करवाएंगे। संविधान और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देशों के खिलाफ संशोधन पारित किया गया और आरोप कांग्रेस पर जड़ दिया गया। खैर, इस बार जो मुद्दा मैं सार्वजानिक कर रहा हूँ वह यह है कि इस गैरकानूनी संशोधन ने आधे हरियाणा से हमेशा के लिए चेयरमैनी के चुनाव में भाग लेने का अधिकार छीन लिया है।

आखिर क्या है समस्या ?

दरअसल सरकार ने अधिनियम पारित करते हुए महिलाओं के लिए 50% आरक्षण का प्रावधान किया और बाकि 50% का प्रावधान महिलाओं के अलावा अन्य के लिए किया गया। इस महिलाओं के अलावा अन्य शब्द की कहीं भी व्याख्या नहीं है इसलिए व्याकरण रूप में पुरुष और किन्नरों को इसमें शामिल करते हैं। ऐसे में प्रॅक्टिकली आधी सीट महिलाओं और आधी सीट पुरुषों के लिए रिजर्व हैं। यही रिजर्वेशन पंचायत समिति वार्डों में, यही रिजर्वेशन जिला परिषद् वार्डों में और यही रिजर्वेशन समिति एवं परिषद् के चेयरमैन के लिए की गयी है। ऐसे में आधे हरियाणा की चेयरमैनी महिलाओं और पुरुषों में बंट गयी है।

अब यहाँ तक सब कुछ साफ़ सुथरा दिखता है, अब बात करते हैं समस्या की। बात ऐसी है कि सीटें रोटेशन में बदलेंगी। यानी जो सीट 2022 में महिलाओं के लिए रिजर्व है वो सीट अगली बार पुरुषों के लिए रिजर्व हो जाएंगी। वही फार्मूला वार्ड से चेयरमैनी में लागू होगा। चेयरमैन बनेंगे वार्ड के मेंबर्स के चुनाव से। अब इस पूरी स्थिति को समझने के लिए एक उदाहरण लेते हैं।

मान लीजिये एक जिले में दो सीट जिला परिषद् की हैं जिनका वार्ड नंबर 1 एवं 2 है। इन दोनों सीट में से एक चेयरमैन बनेगा। 2022 में वार्ड नंबर 1 पुरुषों के लिए रिजर्व है और वार्ड नंबर 2 महिलाओं के लिए रिजर्व है एवं इस बार चेयरमैनी महिलाओं के लिए रिजर्व है। इसका मतलब ये हुआ कि इस बार चेयरमैन वार्ड नंबर 2 से बनेगा। देखने में यह स्थिति साफ़ और स्पष्ट टाइप दिखती है। पर चलिए अब हम चलते हैं 2027 में। इस बार रोटेशन में वार्ड नंबर 1 महिलाओं के लिए रिजर्व रहेगा और वार्ड नंबर 2 पुरुषों के लिए और चेयरमैनी पुरुषों के लिए रिजर्व रहेगी। ऐसे में इस बार फिर से चेयरमैनी आएगी वार्ड नंबर 2 में और वार्ड नंबर 1 का अधिकार हमेशा के लिए चला गया है। किसी भी वर्ष में और किसी भी चुनाव में वार्ड नंबर 1 से कभी चेयरमैन बन ही नहीं पायेगा।

ठीक इस ही प्रकार समस्त हरियाणा में यह रिजर्वेशन प्रभाव दिखाएगी, ऐसे में आधा हरियाणा कभी चेयरमैन के चुनाव में कभी भाग ही नहीं ले पायेगा। आसान भाषा में समझिये कि इस बार मुख्यमंत्री करनाल विधानसभा से आते हैं। अगर कोई प्रक्रिया में ऐसा बदलाव किया जाये जो ये कहे कि अगर हरियाणा में मुखयमंत्री बनना है तो करनाल से ही चुनाव लड़ना होगा तो आप उसे क्या कहेंगे ? सुधार या मूर्खता पूर्ण गैरकानूनी बदलाव !

कुछ ऐसा ही हरियाणा की अनपढ़ सरकार ने किया है जिस पर मैंने दो याचिकाएं अपने क्लाइंट्स के लिए डाली हैं, अब देखते हैं कि ऊँट किस करवट बैठेगा।?

कोरोना के खतरे, कितने तैयार हैं हम? कोरोना के खतरे, कितने तैयार हैं हम? कोरोना के खतरे, कितने तैयार हैं हम? corona 0 750x350

कोरोना के खतरे, कितने तैयार हैं हम?

प्रधानमंत्री की 26 अप्रेल की मन की बात के बाद मीडिया के माध्यम से छिटपुट खबरें आ रही हैं कि लॉकडाउन के बढ़ने की संभावना से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता है। 6 राज्य तो सीधे सीधे इस पक्ष में हैं कि इसे बढ़ाया जाए।  इसके अलावा हरियाणा समेत बहुत से राज्य सीधे कह रहे हैं कि वे इस मामले में केंद्र के दिशानिर्देशों का पालन करेंगे। मंत्रालय की रिपोर्ट्स के मुताबिक लगभग 80 जिले इस समय ऐसे हैं जहाँ कोरोना का नामोनिशान नहीं है। इसमें हरियाणा के 3 जिले भी शामिल हैं। लेकिन कोरोना का खतरा घटने की फ़िलहाल कोई संभावना नहीं दिख रही है। बहुत से हॉटस्पॉट ऐसे बन रहे हैं जहाँ यह कोरोना का कहर बहुतों की जान लेने को स्पष्ट तौर पर उतारू दिख रहा है। 

गुजरात, महाराष्ट्र और  मध्य प्रदेश तीन ऐसे राज्य हैं जहाँ स्पष्ट तौर पर तबाही का अंदेशा दिख रहा है। महाराष्ट्र में मुंबई और पुणे, मध्य प्रदेश में इंदौर और गुजरात में अहमदाबाद अत्यंत खतरनाक परिस्थिति से गुजर रहे हैं। इसके अलावा कोरोना वायरस के लगातार बदलते स्वरूप और म्यूटेशन खतरे को बढ़ा रहे हैं। इस समय की रिपोर्ट को मानें तो कोरोना भारत में पांच अलग अलग म्यूटेशन में पाया जा चुका है। इसके अलावा दो अलग अलग स्ट्रेन का वायरस भारत में इस समय अटैक कर रहा है। आज की मीडिया रिपोर्ट्स के मुताबिक भारत में 17 अलग अलग देशों के म्यूटेशन्स मौजूद हैं। इसके अलावा एल एवं एस स्ट्रेन के वायरस अलग अलग राज्यों में देखने को मिल रहे हैं।  अब तक के मेडिकल रिसर्च के मुताबिक एल स्ट्रेन वायरस अत्यंत घातक है। अमेरिका और चीन के वुहान में इस स्ट्रेन ने ही कहर बरपाया है। यह वायरस इस समय गुजरात के अहमदाबाद एवं मध्य प्रदेश के इंदौर में दिख रहा है। यही कारण है कि वहां लगातार मरीजों की संख्या एवं मरने वालों की संख्या बढ़ती जा रही है। आगरा के महापौर ने अपनी लिखी चिट्ठी में कहा है कि यदि हम नहीं सम्भल पाए तो आगरा वुहान में बदलने में देर नहीं लगाएगा। ज्ञातव्य है कि आगरा में नीदरलैंड वाली म्यूटेशन भी देखने को मिली है। अब तक के शोध के मुताबिक चीन अब तक 4300 अलग अलग म्यूटेशंस दर्ज कर चुका है। इससे स्पष्ट पता लगता है कि वायरस अत्यंत घातक है एवं लगातार अपने स्वरूप को ढाल रहा है। इसके कारण न केवल शोध में दिक्क्त आ रही है इसके अलावा इसकी मेडिकेशन भी ठीक से नहीं बन पा रही है।

अहमदाबाद में 27 फरवरी को नमस्ते ट्रम्प कार्यक्रम के बाद लगातार प्रधानमंत्री को घेरा जाता रहा है। हालाँकि इस कार्यक्रम का कोई अब तक वैज्ञानिक लेना देना नहीं मिला है लेकिन अहमदाबाद में एल श्रेणी का स्ट्रेन पाया जा रहा है जिसने अमेरिका को हिला कर रख दिया है। ऐसे में इसे इस कार्यक्रम से जोड़ने के लिए विपक्ष को एक मुद्दा तो मिल ही गया है। जब लॉकडाउन हुआ तो सबसे पहले प्रवासी मजदूरों ने अपने घरों की तरफ लौटना शुरू किया। गुजरात के बड़े शहरों में, मुंबई, दिल्ली में लगातार मजदूरों की भीड़ एकत्रित हुई जिसने सामाजिक दूरी बनाये रखने की अपील को दरकिनार किया। इसके कारण से भी इन शहरों के इंफेक्शन की संभावना से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता। वहीँ दूसरी और मुंबई में महामारी लगातार बढ़ती जा रही है।  मुंबई में सबसे खतरनाक स्थिति धारावी की है जहाँ इसके बढ़ने की वजह से तबाही से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता है। ध्यान रहे कि धारावी एक ऐसी बस्ती है जहाँ भारत का सबसे अधिक जनसंख्या घनत्व है। कल तक धारावी में दो सौ से अधिक मरीज आ चुके हैं और उनका बढ़ना लगातार जारी है। हरियाणा कमोबेश बहुत अच्छा चल रहा है। मरीजों की अधिक संख्या सोनीपत, गुड़गांव, नूह , फरीदाबाद, पलवल में देखने को मिल रही है।

सबसे अधिक दिक्क्त रेवेन्यू को लेकर है। इंडस्ट्री बंद होने की वजह से एक्ससाइज एन्ड टेक्सेशन मंत्रालय एवं जीएसटी की रिसिप्ट बहुत ज्यादा नीचे जा चुकी है। जहाँ कुछ प्रदेश शराब की दुकानों को खोलने के पक्ष में दिख रहे हैं वहीँ उनके ऐसा करने पर केंद्र ने पूरी तरह से रोक लगा रखी है। मेडिकल विशेषज्ञों का कहना है कि सोशल डिस्टेंसिंग मेंटेन रहना बहुत मुश्किल है एवं शराब की दुकाने खुलते ही भीड़ के वहाँ टूट पड़ने की संभावना से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता है। इन सबके बीच विपक्ष अभी भी लगातार आरोप लगा रहा है कि सरकार टैस्टिंग नहीं बढ़ा रही है जिसके कारण तेजी से नए केस का पता नहीं लग रहा है और संक्रमण के फैलाव से रोका नहीं जा रहा है। इन सबके बीच सरकार स्पष्ट तौर पर मान कर चल रही है कि भारत अब तक कम्युनिटी इंफेक्शन की तरफ नहीं बढ़ा है।  आर्थिक हालातों का अंदाजा आप इस बात से लगा सकते हैं कि जहाँ केंद्र सरकार ने डीए पर रोक लगाई है तो उत्तरप्रदेश ने छह तरह के भत्तों पर रोक लगा दी है।  हालाँकि यह सब मध्यमवर्गीय परिवारों के लिए परेशानी का सबब है। सरकार को चाहिए कि अमीरों पर अतिरिक्त कर लगाए ताकि घाटे की भरपाई की जा सके।  फ़िलहाल सरकार की ऐसी मंशा दिखाई नहीं दे रही है। ऐसे में गरीबों की हालात बद से बदतर होना निश्चित है और मध्यमवर्गीय परिवारों का समस्याओं से घिरना एक प्रकार से निश्चित हो चुका है। इस सब का लम्बे समय तक लिए जा रहे विकास के लक्ष्यों पर बहुत भारी प्रभाव पढ़ना निश्चित माना जा सकता है।

इस सब के बीच उम्मीद की किरण केवल प्लाज़्मा थेरपी के कारण घट रहे मरीज ही हैं। इसके अलावा अभी दिल्ली दूर दिखाई देती है और लॉकडाउन का बढ़ना निश्चित दिख रहा है। बाकी आज प्रधानमंत्री सभी प्रदेशों के मुख्यमंत्रियों के साथ वीडियो कॉन्फ्रेंसिंग से बात करेंगे। इसके बाद क्या निर्णय होता है यह समय बताएगा।

95% of Arab Women Never Had Orgasm 95% of arab women never had orgasm 95% of Arab Women Never Had Orgasm tejasvi surya arab 750x350

95% of Arab Women Never Had Orgasm

“95% of Arab Women Never Had Orgasm” भाजपा के बेंगलोर (साउथ) के सांसद तेजस्वी सूर्या के इस ट्वीट ने इंटरनेट की दुनिया में आग लगा दी है। हालाँकि यह ट्वीट उनके सांसद बनने से पहले का है जब उन्होंने तारिक फतेह को कॉट करते हुए 2015 में यह लिखा था। उस समय वे सांसद भी नहीं थे।  लेकिन जैसे ही उनका स्क्रीनशॉट वायरल हुआ, तैसे ही इंटरनेट की दुनिया में जैसे भूचाल आ गया। अरब देशों के बड़े बड़े राजनयिकों के अलावा शाही परिवारों के लोगों ने भी इस ट्वीट पर विरोध जताया और भारत सरकार को कोसा। कोसने का लेवल यहाँ तक रहा कि इस्लाम फोबिया के नाम से ट्रेंड 21 अप्रेल को समूचे विश्व में टॉप कर गया और आर्टिकल लिखे जाने तक इस हैशटैग के साथ लगभग 697000 ट्वीट हो चुके थे। इस मामले की संवेदना को समझते हुए प्रधानमंत्री को भी बाकायदा पब्लिक में आकर कहना पड़ा कि हम सबको मिल कर धर्म, जाति आदि का भेदभाव किये बिना वायरस से लड़ना है। ज्ञातव्य है कि कोरोना वायरस के फैलाव के शुरू होने के बाद कुछ लोगों ने (जिसमें वरिष्ठ मीडिया भी शामिल था ) कोरोना के फैलाव के लिए दिल्ली में एक जमात के कार्यक्रम को दोषी ठहराना शुरू कर दिया था। एक ऐसे समय में जब समूचा विश्व घरों में बंद है , ऐसे में हर छोटी से छोटी बात को नोटिस किया जा रहा है। हालाँकि जमात में जो हुआ उसको जायज ठहराना अपने आप में नाजायज है फिर भी केवल जमात को ही दोषी ठहराना केवल कोरी राजनीति के अलावा कुछ नहीं है।  हरियाणवी कुश्ती स्टार बबिता फोगट भी इस मामले में कूदी और सीधे आरोप लगाया कि भारत में कोरोना जमात की वजह से फैला है। केंद्रीय स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय ने 19 अप्रेल को आंकड़े जारी करते हुए कहा कि भारत में कुल कोरोना मरीजों में से 29% के लगभग जमात से हैं। अब कम से कम इसे टोटल तो नहीं कहा जा सकता। अन्य 71 % का जमात से कोई लेना देना नहीं है और भारत में पहले कोरोना के मरीज का भी जमात से कोई लेना देना नहीं था। इसे केवल एक सूटेबल राजनीति का ही भाग माना जा सकता है इसके अलावा कुछ नहीं। आंकड़े बताते हैं कि लगभग समूचे विश्व में धार्मिक समूहों की वजह से कोरोना का फैलाव बहुत ज्यादा तेजी से हुआ है। इटली में चर्च तो ब्रिटेन में इस्कॉन की इसमें भूमिका पहले ही सामने आ चुकी है। ऐसे में वायरस को धर्म से जोड़ना राजनीति के अलावा कुछ नहीं है , जिसमें मैं स्वयं को शामिल नहीं पाता हूँ।

खैर जो भी हो यह इस्लाम फोबिया वाली बात सौ आने सही है। किसी भी धर्म के लोग पूरी तरह खराब नहीं हो सकते। यह सच है कि इस्लाम के अंदर कटटरपन है और आजकल आतंकवाद के फैलाव में इस्लाम धर्म को मानने वालों का रोल किसी से छिपा नहीं है। फिर भी मैं यह मानता हूँ कि इसके लिए शरीफ लोगों को तंग नहीं किया जा सकता है। यह भेदभाव हमें खराब करेगा और अरब देशों का यह गुस्सा उसकी शुरुआत भर है। तेल सप्लाई में और भारत के बिजनेस में अरब देशों का बहुत बड़ा रोल है और उसे कमतर कर आंकना ही मूर्खता है। इस्लाम को गाली दे राजनीति चलाना कभी न कभी तो भारी पड़ना ही था। पिछले तीन दिन से हम यह रिजल्ट देख रहे हैं। ठीक है कि भारत में इस्लाम बहुलता में नहीं है, लेकिन इसका मतलब यह नहीं कि समूचे विश्व में नहीं है। ट्रोल आर्मी को यह एहसास होना चाहिए था कि वैश्वीकरण के इस समय में हम किसी भी देश से दूर नहीं हो सकते हैं, खासकर जब हमारे व्यापारिक हित जुड़े हुए हों। इस्लाम जनसँख्या के आधार  पर विश्व का सबसे ज्यादा माने जाने वाला धर्म है और ज्यादातर देशों के साथ हमारे व्यापारिक रिश्ते भी हैं।  आप समझिये कि अकेले UAE के साथ व्यापार की बात को भी छोड़ दो तो भी लगभग तीन करोड़ भारतीय वहाँ पर काम करते हैं। यह आंकड़ा बता सकता है कि जो बीज हम बो रहे हैं यदि इसकी फसल भारत से बाहर कटनी शुरू हो गयी तो यह भारत और भारतीयों के लिए एक बहुत बड़ा झटका होगी। अतः हमें इस्लाम अथवा धर्मों को राजनीति का भाग बनाने से बचना होगा और इस बात को अहमियत देनी होगी कि भारत एक है  और भारत में रहने  वाले सभी नागरिक भारतीय हैं। इस्लाम को गाली देना देशभक्ति नहीं।