New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought direction to make the court judgments available in Hindi and other regional languages mentioned in the Schedule VIII of the Constitution.
The PIL was filed by advocate Suhaas R Joshi, who urged SC to give directions to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court to develop mechanisms to translate court judgments into various regional languages.
Joshi had submitted in his petition that non-availability of authentic translations of court judgments was causing immense difficulties for the common people who do not understand English.
The petition stated: “The absence of authoritative translations of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court puts a litigant and his counsel, not learned in English, at a great disadvantage in understanding and obtaining judgments for reliance in a court where proceedings are otherwise conducted in vernacular language/s.”
Highlighting how weaker sections of society were exposed to exploitation due to non-availability of judgments in vernacular languages, the petition stated: “The non-availability of the authoritative translations of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court to a litigant or his counsel sets in a situation in the local courts where the weaker parties become vulnerable to manipulation and pressure by the local people with greater wealth, education, and connections, thereby creating asymmetrical power relations.”
However, the plea was rejected by the three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur, Justice A K Sikri, and Justice R Banumathi.
The bench said: “We cannot pass such direction as the court language is English.“
But, this is not the first time such a plea has been rejected. In January, the government had submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court rejecting the proposal to amend the Constitution and make Hindi the official language in the apex court and the high courts.
The government’s affidavit was in response to a PIL filed by a lawyer, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, who had contended that the use of English as an official language in higher judiciary was a ‘legacy of the British rule’ and hence should be scrapped.
English-speaking Islamic State supporters are refusing to give up on the terror group’s ability to remain a force in Syria and Iraq, according to a new study that examined their behavior on the Telegram instant messaging service.
The report, “Encrypted Extremism: Inside the English-Speaking Islamic State Ecosystem on Telegram,” released Thursday by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, looked at 636 pro-Islamic State channels and groups in the 16 months from June 2017 through October 2018.
It found that even as the terror group was losing ground in Syria and Iraq to U.S.-backed forces, and even as IS leadership was encouraging followers to start looking to progress in IS provinces elsewhere, English-speaking supporters turned to Telegram to reinforce their faith in the caliphate.
“These are supporters that like to fight uphill battles,” report co-author Bennet Clifford told VOA. “What supporters are trying to do when they’re engaging with this conversation is attempt to shift the narrative away from loss and provide justifications for it.”
At the same time, these English-speaking supporters sought to amplify their beliefs, supplementing official IS propaganda with user-generated content while also increasing the distribution of instructional material on how to carry out attacks.
“I think it’s part of an attempt in some cases to spin the narrative their way,” Clifford added.
Attraction of Telegram
IS supporters first started flocking to Telegram, an instant messaging service that promises speed and encryption for private communications, in 2015 as social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook began a crackdown aimed at Islamic State’s often violent and gory propaganda.
Since then, IS has been hooked by Telegram’s promise that it will not disclose user data to government officials and by the service’s ability to let supporters organize and share large files, including video.
“No other platforms appear to have developed the same balance of features, user-friendliness, and basic security that could warrant a new switch,” the report said.
That ease of use has long worried counterterrorism officials, who have watched as IS has used the online ecosystem to help plan and carry out the November 2015 attacks in Paris, attacks on a Christmas market in Berlin in December 2016 and the attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul just weeks later.
In those cases, the attackers appear to have been given instructions from IS officials in Syria and Iraq. But Telegram has given rise to several key English-speaking facilitators who have been operating on the periphery.
One of them, according to Clifford and co-author Helen Powell, was 36-year-old Karen Aizha Hamidon, who helped mobilize sympathizers from the United States to Singapore to join the terror group or its affiliates.
Hamidon, who was arrested by Philippine authorities in October 2017, has also been linked to efforts to establish an IS province in India.
Another key player, 34-year-old Ashraf al-Safoo, took a different approach before being arrested last October by the FBI in Chicago.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, al-Safoo was a key member of the Khattab Media Foundation, which used hacked social media accounts on platforms like Twitter to disseminate IS propaganda.
“Much of the propaganda created and distributed by Khattab promotes violent jihad on behalf of ISIS and ISIS’s media office,” the Justice Department said in a statement using a different acronym for the militant group.
While both Hamidon and al-Safoo are now in custody, showing the ability of law enforcement to penetrate their Telegram operations, others are likely to replace them because of the ongoing need of Islamic State’s English-speaking supporters to communicate and find larger audiences.
“While there are a number of disadvantages for Islamic State supporters in the use of Telegram from a security perspective they’ll continue to do it because their balance of outreach and operational security,” Clifford said. “There’s not another alternative at this point in time.” (VOA)