[The ET edit below, rather surprisingly, makes at least one very valid and vital point, despite some serious aberrations (on expected lines).
No document, btw, has, possibly, "disappeared". At least, that doesn't appear to be the contention till now. What the AG meant is that the contents have been leaked "illegally", by way of stealth. To make it sound sensational - "stolen documents". That has boomeranged. The very same one had argued before the Supreme Court that 13' high and 5' thick walls guarantee the safety of the stored Aadhaar data. 《'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.’ This was one of the most consequential observations in the US Supreme Court’s 1971majority opinion that allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers — a secret government history of the US’ Vietnam conflict — overruling government arguments that press reportage based on “unauthorised” leaks violated certain laws and “harmed” national security. ...India’s government told its Supreme Court that “leaked” papers on Rafale were “stolen”, that the Official Secrets (OS) Act was therefore violated, that The Hindu newspaper, which reported on these papers, should also be charged. And, finally, that the court must dismiss the ongoing hearings on Rafale because the “leak” was “unlawful”. This is a dangerous argument in a democracy, and will become a dangerous precedent if it gets judicial imprimatur. ... ... ...India’s top court must preserve the right of press and petitioners. The two are not mutually exclusive.》] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-editorials/government-is-wrong-on-rafale-paper-leak/?fbclid=IwAR1tTsu8A4ZM8NFRUPu_6i6zUhgOfRffHUjk6Y979Ff3qRMwQzAz72rUNp8 Government is wrong on Rafale paper leak March 6, 2019, 10:44 PM IST ET Edit in ET Editorials | Economy, Edit Page, India, politics | ET ‘The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.’ This was one of the most consequential observations in the US Supreme Court’s 1971majority opinion that allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers — a secret government history of the US’ Vietnam conflict — overruling government arguments that press reportage based on “unauthorised” leaks violated certain laws and “harmed” national security. It’s no one’s case that there’s any similarity between the US’ Vietnam War and India’s acquisition, decades later, of French fighter jets. But that US apex court observation on press freedom and public interest became relevant here today — India’s government told its Supreme Court that “leaked” papers on Rafale were “stolen”, that the Official Secrets (OS) Act was therefore violated, that The Hindu newspaper, which reported on these papers, should also be charged. And, finally, that the court must dismiss the ongoing hearings on Rafale because the “leak” was “unlawful”. This is a dangerous argument in a democracy, and will become a dangerous precedent if it gets judicial imprimatur. In principle, it is not the press’ duty to serve the government. And if newspapers are to be held guilty of legal violations on publication of documents that the government of the day wants to keep under wraps, a fundamental principle of free press will be under attack. The OS Act is ominously omnibus in nature, and GoI’s argument, if accepted, can potentially throttle press investigation across a wide range of subjects, not just defence. GoI’s argument that the court should dismiss the case because papers were “stolen” is also alarming. Justice and democracy ultimately function on broad definitions of right and wrong, not narrow applications of statutes. The Rafale deal has been stoutly defended by the government, its main contours have been okayed by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). GoI should continue making its case on facts and logic while the courts hear the current review petition. Whether papers have been ‘stolen’ matters far, far less than the petitioner’s right to seek a review and the press’ right to publish. Let’s also remember that today’s government was yesterday’s Opposition, and that in its earlier avatar, today’s ruling party took the then-government to task on the basis of numerous press reports based on ‘leaked’ documents that were not meant to be public. The AgustaWestland case, for example, saw a blizzard of leaked papers. The attorney general’s observation that Rafales are needed for national defence is unexceptionable. But his argument that the recent intrusion by Pakistan’s F-16 across the line of control (LoC) makes the case for dismissing the Rafale petition takes legal arguments into the realm of political rhetoric. India should have Rafales. And India’s top court must preserve the right of press and petitioners. The two are not mutually exclusive. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
