Goodbye @SandeepSeminars

Summary

In this video script, the speaker addresses allegations of disrespecting the Indian flag during a graduation ceremony at Columbia University. The speaker passionately defends their actions as a display of patriotism and challenges the legal validity of the charges, citing case laws and arguing that the accusations are baseless and driven by personal vendetta rather than national concern. The script also touches on issues of public sentiment, the misuse of legal language for personal gain, and the importance of upholding truth and justice in the face of manipulation and propaganda.

Takeaways

• 📜 The speaker addresses Sandeep Maheshwari and his legal team, urging them to watch the video to the end, implying there is a serious matter to discuss.
• 🔍 The speaker criticizes Sandeep for using phrases like 'let the battle begin' and accuses him of bullying and suppression, suggesting a legal conflict.
• 🏛 The speaker mentions appearing in court in self-defense, highlighting the lack of a specific court named and the misuse of the term 'Honorable High Court of India', indicating a misunderstanding of legal terms.
• 🎓 The speaker emphasizes their pride in their educational achievements, particularly at Columbia University, to establish credibility and counter any accusations.
• 🏁 The speaker defends the act of wearing the Indian flag at a graduation ceremony, arguing it as a display of national pride rather than disrespect.
• 📚 The speaker references legal cases and principles, such as the Flag Code of India not being a law and the high threshold for proving intent to disrespect the national flag.
• 🍾 The speaker argues that any alcohol consumption was ceremonial and not intended to disrespect the flag, distinguishing between drinking for pleasure and ceremonial sipping.
• 🤔 The speaker poses several rhetorical questions to the court, challenging the notion that their actions were disrespectful and emphasizing the importance of intent in such cases.
• 📖 The speaker accuses the petitioner of spreading misinformation and using the issue of the national flag as a cover to silence them and remove a video critical of the petitioner.
• 💬 The speaker requests the court to dismiss the charges of defamation, arguing that there is no specific instance of defamation mentioned by the petitioner and that their criticism was justifiable.
• 🏆 The speaker concludes by framing the conflict as a battle between individual ego and freedom of expression, not a matter of national importance.

Q & A

Who is the speaker in the video script, and what is the main issue they are addressing?

The speaker in the video script is 'Foreign', who is addressing legal issues related to accusations of disrespecting the Indian national flag and defamation charges brought against him by Sandeep Maheshwari.

What is the context of the 'battle begins' statement mentioned in the script?

The 'battle begins' statement is a part of a message where the speaker is being metaphorically confrontational, possibly indicating the start of a legal or public dispute.

What is the significance of the speaker mentioning 'The Honorable High Court of India' and its non-existence?

The speaker is pointing out a factual error in the petitioner's notice, highlighting that there is no such entity as 'The Honorable High Court of India', to emphasize the petitioner's lack of legal accuracy and credibility.

What are the two main charges brought against the speaker by the petitioner?

The two main charges are: 1) Violation of the Flag Code of India under Section 3 subsection 22, and 2) Application of the Prevention of Insult to National Honor Act, referred to as 'PINA'.

Why does the speaker argue that the Flag Code of India is not a law?

The speaker cites a Supreme Court judgment (Naveen Jindal versus Union of India) stating that the Flag Code of India is not a statute as defined under Article 13 3A of the Constitution of India, hence it is not legally enforceable.

What is the speaker's defense regarding the Prevention of Insult to National Honor Act (PINA)?

The speaker argues that PINA applies only to India, and since he was in the United States at the time of the alleged offense, the act does not apply to his case.

What is the speaker's educational background as mentioned in the script?

The speaker was a student at Columbia University in New York, which is an Ivy League university and is highly respected globally.

How does the speaker describe the context of wearing the Indian flag during his graduation ceremony at Columbia University?

The speaker describes it as an act of pride and representation of his motherland, done in a respectful manner and as part of a grand graduation ritual.

What is the speaker's stance on the accusation of drinking alcohol while wearing the flag?

The speaker refutes the accusation, explaining that the act was ceremonial and celebratory, not an act of disrespect, and that the intention behind his actions was patriotic.

How does the speaker address the issue of public sentiment and the role of the court in his case?

The speaker emphasizes that the court should be focused on justice and truth, rather than being swayed by public sentiment or manipulated by false narratives.

What is the speaker's final request to the court regarding the defamation charges?

The speaker requests the court to recognize the defamation charges as a tool for personal vengeance and to dismiss them, as he believes they are baseless and part of an attempt to silence him.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Addressing Legal Allegations

The speaker addresses allegations made by Sandeep Maheshwari and his legal team, urging them to watch the video to the end. They liken themselves to an elder figure and criticize the use of the phrase 'let the battle begin' as a threat. The speaker then invites media attention to the case, which they view as an example of public bullying and suppression. They express readiness to defend themselves in court, despite the lack of clarity on the jurisdiction, and promise to expose the petitioner's case as baseless and an attempt to manipulate public sentiment.

05:02

🏛 Defense Against Flag Code Violation

The speaker refutes the charge of violating the Flag Code of India, citing a Supreme Court judgment that the flag code is not a law but merely instructions. They argue that the charge is non-existent and point out the petitioner's lack of knowledge about the law. The speaker also addresses a second charge related to the Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act, noting that the law applies only within India, thus lacking jurisdiction over their actions taken abroad. They conclude by stating their intention to set the record straight and defend their honor in court.

10:28

🎓 Display of National Pride at Graduation

The speaker describes their graduation from Columbia University, an Ivy League institution, and the pride they feel for their Indian heritage. They recount wearing the Indian flag at their graduation ceremony as a symbol of pride and respect for their motherland. The speaker refutes accusations of disrespect by explaining the Western tradition of university graduations and the acceptance of diverse cultural representations at such events. They emphasize their patriotic intent and the recognition of their achievement by dignitaries, including Hillary Clinton.

15:29

🍾 The Misinterpretation of Alcohol Consumption

The speaker defends themselves against accusations of disrespecting the Indian flag by consuming alcohol while wearing it. They clarify that the act was a ceremonial sip, not consumption for pleasure, and is a common practice in celebratory rituals worldwide. The speaker criticizes the petitioner's lack of understanding and argues that the intention behind their actions was patriotic and respectful. They call for the dismissal of charges based on invalidity, lack of jurisdiction, and reliance on previous case laws.

20:29

📜 The Importance of Intent in Flag Disrespect Cases

The speaker discusses legal precedents that emphasize the importance of intent in cases of alleged disrespect towards the national flag. They cite case laws that require a high threshold for proving malicious intent and argue that the lack of such proof should lead to the dismissal of the case. The speaker contends that the courts prioritize intention and are sensitive to the misuse of law in such cases. They request the dismissal of charges due to the non-existence of legal grounds and the petitioner's failure to prove malicious intent.

25:30

🥂 The Misunderstanding Surrounding Alcohol

The speaker addresses the petitioner's claims of disrespect due to the consumption of alcohol, asserting that the act was ceremonial and not intended to insult the national flag. They distinguish between drinking for pleasure and ceremonial sipping, likening it to religious practices that involve alcohol. The speaker criticizes the petitioner's intelligence and understanding of context, arguing that their actions were misinterpreted and that the harmless consumption of alcohol should not be judged, especially in the absence of legal violations.

30:30

👥 The Influence of Public Sentiment on Legal Cases

The speaker discusses the role of public sentiment in legal cases and the danger of courts becoming slaves to it. They argue that courts must apply common sense and apparent interpretation to avoid being manipulated by propagandists and fake news. The speaker contends that it is the duty of all citizens to uphold the truth and that feelings should not supersede facts. They encourage the court to see their actions as an act of patriotism and to consider the context in which they displayed the national flag.

35:31

🗣️ The Allegation of Defamation

The speaker refutes the charge of defamation, pointing out the petitioner's failure to specify any defamatory statements. They argue that the petitioner's actions are driven by personal vengeance and a desire to silence them, rather than genuine concern for national dignity. The speaker challenges the petitioner's motives, suggesting that their accusations of communal tensions and disrespect are unfounded and an exaggerated attempt to manipulate public sentiment.

40:31

🤬 The Pattern of Exaggerated Accusations

The speaker highlights a pattern of exaggerated claims made by the petitioner, including accusations of disturbing national peace and creating communal tensions. They argue that these claims are baseless and question the petitioner's credibility, given their large audience size. The speaker also discusses the petitioner's tactics, such as using national issues to gain public support and their attempts to manipulate the speaker into removing a video that challenges their bullying behavior.

45:47

📽️ The Manipulation of Video Evidence

The speaker accuses the petitioner of manipulating video evidence to support their claims. They recount the sequence of events leading to the uploading and removal of a video that allegedly shows disrespect towards the national flag. The speaker suggests that the petitioner's actions were part of a calculated strategy to pressure them into submission and that their ultimate goal was to silence the speaker and remove a video that stood up to their bullying.

📢 The Consequences of Public Influence

In the final paragraph, the speaker reflects on the petitioner's use of their large audience to spread misinformation and the potential legal consequences of such actions. They argue that the petitioner's attempts to manipulate public sentiment and silence dissent are dangerous and liken them to the tactics of propagandists. The speaker concludes by expressing their refusal to be a victim of the petitioner's bullying and manipulation.

Keywords

💡Legal Team

A legal team refers to a group of legal professionals who work together to provide legal advice, representation, and support in a case. In the video's context, the speaker mentions Sandeep's legal team, indicating that there is a formal legal process or dispute involved, and the team is expected to watch the video carefully, possibly for evidence or argument construction.

💡Flag Code of India

The Flag Code of India is a set of guidelines that describe the proper use, display, and respect for the national flag. The speaker in the video discusses this code in the context of being accused of violating it, highlighting the debate over whether the flag code is legally enforceable or simply a set of instructions.

💡Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (PINHA)

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act is a law in India that deals with offenses related to the national flag and the national anthem. The speaker mentions this act in relation to the second charge against him, discussing its applicability and the need for a specific intent to insult the national honor.

💡Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court or government to enact rules and adjudicate legal matters in a certain area. The video discusses the issue of jurisdiction in relation to the PINHA, questioning whether the act applies to the speaker's actions outside of India.

💡Intention

Intention in legal terms refers to the mental state or purpose behind an action. The speaker emphasizes the importance of proving malicious intent in cases of alleged disrespect to the national flag, arguing that his actions were patriotic and not intended to insult.

💡Defamation

Defamation is a false statement that unjustly harms the reputation of an individual or entity. The speaker addresses accusations of defamation, claiming that the petitioner has not specified any defamatory content from his work and that the accusations are part of a personal vendetta.

💡National Flag

The national flag is a symbol of a country's identity and sovereignty. Throughout the video, the speaker defends his actions involving the Indian national flag, asserting that his intentions were to display pride and respect rather than disrespect.

💡Columbia University

Columbia University is an Ivy League institution located in New York City, known for its high academic standards and ranking among the top universities globally. The speaker mentions attending Columbia to establish his educational background and credibility, which is relevant to the context of the graduation ceremony where the flag was displayed.

💡Public Sentiment

Public sentiment refers to the general attitude or opinion of the public towards a particular issue. The video discusses the petitioner's attempt to influence public sentiment by linking the speaker's actions to national disrespect, which the speaker argues is a manipulation of public emotion.

💡Personal Vendetta

A personal vendetta is a grudge or a desire for revenge against someone, often stemming from a personal conflict. The speaker suggests that the accusations against him are driven by the petitioner's personal vendetta rather than genuine concern for national honor.

💡Constitution of India

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India, laying out the framework for the country's government and fundamental rights of its citizens. The speaker refers to Article 19 of the Constitution, which deals with freedom of expression, to argue that his actions are protected under the law.

Highlights

The speaker addresses Sandeep and his legal team, urging them to watch the video carefully until the end.

The speaker compares himself to an elder brother or father, then mentions the phrase 'let the battle begin', suggesting a conflict.

The speaker criticizes the petitioner for using the phrase 'The Honorable High Court of India', which he claims does not exist.

The speaker argues that the case against him is a farce and is designed to manipulate public sentiment.

The speaker contends that he is not disrespecting the national flag but rather making his motherland proud.

The speaker challenges the validity of the first charge, stating that the Flag Code of India is not a law and thus cannot be violated.

The speaker points out that the Prevention of Insult to National Honor Act (PINHA) only applies to India, questioning the jurisdiction of the case.

The speaker highlights his educational achievements at Columbia University, a prestigious Ivy League institution.

The speaker describes the graduation ceremony at Columbia University and the diversity of national flags displayed, including the Indian flag.

The speaker argues that his actions were patriotic and respectful, not intended to insult the national flag.

The speaker references previous court cases that emphasize the importance of intent in cases of alleged disrespect to the national flag.

The speaker accuses the petitioner of using the national flag issue as a pretext to silence him and remove his video.

The speaker questions the petitioner's credibility and motives, suggesting personal vendetta over national concern.

The speaker challenges the petitioner to specify instances of defamation, arguing that his own statements were merely criticism and humor.

The speaker discusses the petitioner's tactics, including spreading misinformation and using public sentiment to his advantage.

The speaker concludes by inviting the petitioner to engage in a formal legal process in court, rather than manipulating public opinion.

Transcripts

hi guys welcome back Sandeep and legal

team also welcome

videos

or

sorry

please watch this video carefully Until

the End especially sandeep's legal team

you guys should definitely watch this

till the very end yes

pehli bath

s is

think about me like your elder brother

or father and later in the same post you

are saying let the battle begins

you don't think this threat will land

you in trouble in the court Sandeep

maheshwari fir uses

let the battle begin

my heart is

um

foreign

foreign

if a newspaper a News Channel or a

podcaster is interested in these details

in this very bizarre and public form of

bullying and suppression message

anyway before we speak more about Mr

maheshwari

um

foreign

to be a little patients

charges law of facts and then

applications

for fun

my lords I appeared before the court in

defense of myself

which court I do not know

because the petitioner in his notice

says that they bring me in front of the

honorable high court of India

and any man that has ever read a book or

a newspaper can tell you that there is

no such thing as The Honorable high

court of India perhaps my detractors

would know if they're red and perhaps my

detractors would read if they were not

so obsessed with their own wisdom

however I will give the petitioner the

benefit of the doubt and argue

regardless

as The Honorable Court will see in

arguing for myself I will give the

petitioner many such benefits of Dubs at

many points in the course of the

argument where one can see that the

petitioner's case is pointless null and

void

I will do so because I want to set the

record straight for the petitioner and

the public at large once and for all and

show to the court

that not only is this case a complete

farce

that there is no substance to this case

but also that this case is carefully

engineered to produce a specific public

sentiment it is my contention my lots

that I appear before you today not

because I have done anything

to disrespect the national flag

or my motherland

but exactly because I have made it proud

too loudly

I stand before the court not because I

have offended my nation or my people

but because I have offended the

petitioner's idea of himself

by being unafraid for my motherland and

unafraid of him

Let The Honorable Court make no mistake

this is not a hearing to redress the

Dignity of our nation this is a hearing

to redress the petitioner's bloodthirst

this is not the hurt of the people we

are accounting for today this is the

whims of an individual

however I do not wish to make these

claims before I have presented my

defense because if I did there would be

nothing left that separates me from my

petitioner

the petitioner seeks to accuse

the petitioner seeks to accuse accused

endlessly and accuse egregiously without

defending and I refuse to accuse without

defending first

the record must be set straight and

Truth must emerge and in the interest of

that I will reach deeper and wider to

quill any and all concerns that The

Honorable Court the respected petitioner

or the public at large might have even

the ones the petitioner has been

incompetent in producing

with that my lords please give me

permission to begin my submissions

foreign

the petitioner has produced two charges

charge number one petitioner says I have

violated the flag code of India under

Section 3 subsection 22 relevant

portions are attached

my lords please note in the surviving

evidence

since the petitioner is really fond of

erasing any Trails of embarrassment

the petitioner has mentioned this Thrice

and that this is the strongest most

repeated charge that the petitioner has

charge number two petitioner has also

casually mentioned some application of

the prevention of insult to National

Honor act hereby referred as pinha or

Pina

my lords May note that this there is no

surviving evidence where a section or a

provision is mentioned only Lou's

language has been borrowed from section

2.

okay I will respond to charge one now my

Lord

my lords I plead that the first petition

is dispensable at sight

in a landmark judgment on the issue of

the flag codes penal validity

it was held by the Supreme Court that

the flag code of India is not a statute

as defined under Article 13 3A of the

Constitution of India

this is Naveen Jindal versus Union of

India relevant portions have been

attached simply put one cannot violate

the flag code of India because the flag

code is not a law it is only

instructions

This Is Not Mere rhetoric to escape the

charges my Lord like I said I will give

my opponent the benefit of the doubt in

several of these instances

this is merely to remind my opponent to

perhaps read a book

or at least read up on the charges they

seek to pursue

cases

foreign

is that charge number one is so bad that

it is not even null and void it is

non-existent

however

the good news for my opponent is that

the language of section 2 of Pina is

similar to the language of flag code of

India Section 3 subsection 22. and so in

arguing for charge 2 I will also have to

argue on the merits of charge one

I hope my lords that this brings a

genuine smile to my opponent's face

even if for one last time before I

destroy the rest of his case

charge two my lords my Lord's let us

assume the petitioner in fact did

petition correctly under the prevention

of insult to National Honor act 1971 and

wants to hold me liable for violation of

section two and more specifically

explanation for D to section two

the relevant portion is attached and

highlighted

also attached and highlighted is section

one of the ACT where the scope and

extent of the law is written and the law

clearly states it applies only to India

my lords we must seriously ask at this

point has the petitioner not read up on

the charges he seeks to pursue

how can he charge me with a lot that

doesn't apply to the place I'm in

section one scope of the ACT Ki boss

foreign

then do I fall within section 2

explanation 4D final legal question

fact number one

at the time of the petition in May 2022

I was a student at Columbia University

in the city of New York

Fact Two Columbia University is a very

respectable and coveted ivy league

university and constantly features in

the top 10 of the world University

rankings

this is an easily verifiable fact that

can be Googled perhaps my opponents

would know that if they did not think

they knew more than Google

it is humbly submitted that according to

the Center for World university rankings

my Lord Colombia is ranked number seven

best university in the world

as a measure of scale I am Ahmedabad is

ranked 415 and IIT Madras is ranked 557.

my lords let this fact highlight the

prominence of the educational

achievement of the defendant

if cracking IIT and IM some of the best

universities in India is difficult such

that it is the dream of Millions

one might say graduating from one of the

best universities in the world is a

golden achievement

fact number three it is known that

American universities do a grand

graduation ritual very much in style

with the Western tradition fact number

four it is also known that many students

represent their identities during these

events because the uniform and the

ritualistic aspect of these ceremonies

are very Western and Christian in nature

in fact on on the graduation gown is the

crest of Colombia with a Christian cross

however these universities are very

accepting of people representing their

own identities at these events people

hold and where Flags change the crest to

represent the Star of David or dress

underneath the gown and traditional

attire from their Nations

at the graduation ceremony of 2022 the

most common one flag was that of Ukraine

ceremonies

western or Christian

University graduation Flags

fact number five it should be noted that

the university has no problem with it it

is the University and the student's way

of displaying pride in their identity in

a setting that brings into its fold

hundreds of different nationalities

religions cultures and languages

fact number six it should also be noted

that these ceremonies were presided over

by many dignitaries

the list includes Hillary Clinton ex

secretary of state of the United States

of America Yo-Yo Ma Celeste par

Excellence Patty Smith rock star from

the 70s

it is also suspected however unknown

that amongst the guests were also Uday

kotak and arvind panagaria two very

prominent Indian figures

fact number seven

I vote the national flag around my

shoulder briefly and twice over a two

ceremony period to represent my

motherland and all that it has taught me

I contend with wearing that flag with

pride that I am where I am because of

India and all that this land and its

people have taught me

fact number eight

in one of the videos from the event

I am seen taking a sip from a bottle

that the petitioner contests with no

real proof is alcoholic I am seen

possibly wearing the same flag

the shot is one and a half second long

and played twice in the edited video

uploaded by the petitioner for dramatic

effect

s

my lords I would like to begin by asking

four questions that I have first

question number one

how many people in the world much less

India get to attend a university like

Columbia University at all

question two how many people can claim

that they displayed the Indian flag with

pride in a foreign country on the day of

a rare and profound accomplishment in

their life in front of thousands of

people of different nationalities

question number three my Lord

how many people can claim to have

carried the Indian flag on display in

front of dignitaries like Hillary

Clinton

number four in fact my lords the

following is humbly submitted as a

question

how many Indians get to display the

pride of the Indian national flag at all

how many ever do it how many ever get an

opportunity to do it

my lords in questions K obvious answers

say

merry intention obvious

even from a very plain watching of the

Vlog the Vlog from which the footage is

edited out by the petitioner and

displayed as an insult to the national

flag one can see that the intent behind

wearing the flag is completely patriotic

and respectful

in fact the very song playing in the

back of the Vlog from which the edited

footage is gathered says I got loyalty

in My DNA

this is a conclusion that a

four-year-old could come to my intention

is clear and the court must keep it

front and center as we move forward with

this case

I have loyalty in My DNA

foreign

versus Union of India 2012.

the facts of the case are slightly

different but the underlying charge and

issue is similar and the Bombay high

court in its order on the issue held

that one of the essential ingredients of

the said offense disrespect to national

flag and such is that disrespect and

contempt of the flag should be

intentional

relevant pairs are reproduced

disrespected

in the case of D senthil Kumar versus

the state of Tamil Nadu where facts of

the case light were slightly different

but the underlying issue of Law and

interpretation were the same Madras High

Court held that

what is deduced is that men's Raya which

is the cause to insult show disrespect

or to bring into contempt towards the

national flag or the Constitution is

seen at a high threshold

foreign

the order held similarly the relevant

para is reproduced

the order says from the perusal of the

relevant provisions of this act so also

the code and on careful scrutiny of

materials on record

it is clear that there is a dearth of

materials to show an intention or men's

Rhea to disrespect the national flag and

thereby to undermine the sovereignty of

the nation

intentions

all these case laws are covered and

relied upon in decentral Kumar's case in

Madras High Court the order is attached

below

three important principles emerge from

these three important case laws that The

Honorable Court have considered in the

history of flag disrespect litigation

whether an act is insulting depends on

intention principle one intention

principle two that the threshold for

proving malified intention is high that

is that the malified intent must either

be very obvious and apparent or the onus

is on the petitioner to prove if the

intent behind any action was malified at

all keep bury intention proof

and principle number three that a dearth

a Kami of being able to prove intent

would lead to the case being dismissed

on

from a simple reading of these three

case laws and the principles of

interpretation laid down by the courts

it would seem that the case is

completely dismissible at this point

the courts have given primary importance

to men's Rhea in deciding whether an

actual insult is delivered to the flag

or the country

not only that it would seem that the

courts are very sensitive to the misuse

of law in these cases

besides the petitioner has done nothing

to show that my intention is

disrespectful and quite frankly they

know that they know I did not have the

flag on me for disrespect they don't

wish to pursue these legal charges

charges one or two seriously they seek

to use this legal language to make a

broader emotional case

one can even say they seek to drape

their private motivations in the flag

keep petitioner Bhai

bilkul fighting

charge one or charge to use to build an

emotional case just my audience

so it is my request at this point that

charge 1 and 2 be dismissed on the count

of one invalidity of charge two lack of

jurisdiction and three simply relying on

previous case laws that have settled

matters like this several times in very

clear language

there is no legal case here

now my lords

for unsuccessful like I had mentioned

National dignity

foreign

charge 3 is an implied charge

it is not explicitly mentioned as a

separate charge but in effect the

petitioner has used charge one and two

to build pressure on charge three what

is charge three charge three is the

emotional case that the petitioner has

made to the public and has two parts one

that has supposedly drank alcohol while

supposedly wearing the flag and two that

it is somehow disrespected the Indian

people

so I remove my original video hello

Sandeep maheshwari

my lords keep this in mind as I handle

charge 3.

charge 3. firstly it is important to

restate my lord said there is no law

that covers charge three that there is

nothing about food or alcohol in Pina or

FCI however I will argue against these

charges because these are the actual

charges that the petitioner has levied

on me charge one and charge 2 was just a

ruse or an excuse to actually get public

sentiment invested in charge three the

petitioner wants people to feel enraged

by the supposed alcohol Flack

combination

and thus I shall speak to the court and

the people on charge 3.

my Lord's the petitioner says that I'm

insulting the flag by drinking alcohol

while I wear it

for the sake of charge 3 my lords let us

assume that I did in fact hold a bottle

of alcohol in my hand well first my

lords let me make a very obvious and

non-subtle distinction between drinking

and taking a ceremonial sip

alcohol of the nature of Champagnes Etc

is consumed as a ritual of Celebration

across the world including India but

particularly in Western countries

this ritual does not tant amount to

drinking where drinking is drinking for

personal pleasure this is participating

in rituals just how the Jewish people

take a sip of the wine in their Shabbat

practice

in neither cases is the alcohol consumed

to get drunk or results in one getting

drunk the alcohol is merely consumed as

a beverage

the defining feature of that beverage in

these contexts is not their alcoholic

content but the collective sentiment and

history of the people

the fact that this has to be made clear

to the petitioner is in itself a

statement on the petitioner's general

level of intelligence

it seems that my seven-year-old nephew

who understood the context of this

situation is smarter than the petitioner

perhaps he too should run a motivational

Channel

foreign foreign

okay in some examples May primary

importance

of

Celebration is

so first it must be noted that I did not

drink to get drunk

much less insult the national flag that

is not my intention however what is

obnoxious about this whole situation is

that in this petition I have to defend

my intention twice over two issues why I

drank and what was my intention behind

wearing the flag while the petitioner

has given no statement of Defense on

their intention not even once my lords

and this is besides the fact that the

original video from which the contested

footage is edited shows my intention

behind both those things

lastly my lords I have only one thing to

say about the general nature of alcohol

we know has been the cause of many a

problems in our Civic structure No Doubt

however if we were to consider the

extreme bad use case of alcohol we must

also consider the neutral use case if

not the extremely good use case of

alcohol in defining what alcohol

represents

people of India and the world drink all

the time peacefully for recreation

that type of consumption must not be

villainized not at least in a court of

law

it is the fundamental right of people to

consume alcohol and more importantly it

is a personal preference that should

attract no moral scrutiny from another

person

especially one that is not directly

affected and especially in the case

where there has been no violation of Law

and no Jeopardy to another citizen

the harmless consumption of alcohol must

not be judged by another man especially

a man who himself has solid

introspection to do about his moral

Behavior

it is argued my lords that if a man

tries to stigmatize benign and minimum

alcohol consumption of this ritualistic

and celebratory nature then they are

trying to close the mind of the people

instead of open them further

admi is typically celebratory alcohol

consumption

villain is

this is important because the petitioner

claims that the motivation behind that

public Persona is the latter to open the

mind of the people

while clearly for personal Vengeance

they will use all samdham and to their

advantage for personal Vengeance my

lords the petitioner will stand by no

principle they have voiced otherwise it

is all my way or the highway

and that begs the question my lords is

the petitioner fit enough anymore to

yield The credibility that they have

acquired over a decade

on social media is this not dangerous

behavior my lords a man that has an

audience greater than the size of many

countries

should he be allowed to use those powers

like a dictator foreign

foreign

anyway my lords let me come to the final

question that can be raised out of this

issue the question of public sentiment

if any minor segment of the population

still feels offended without direct

influence from the petitioner

without direct influence from um

my lords and I have this to say my lords

the courts exist in the interest of

Justice

and like is known and seen Lady Justice

is blind and unprejudiced

the courts must stand unprejudiced to

the accused and unprejudiced to the

public sentiment this is not to say that

public sentiment does not matter but in

the day and age of modern communication

technology when things can be made to

look like something else all the time

the court must apply the litmus test of

Common Sense and apparent interpretation

otherwise

the courts will be a slave to public

sentiment and in turn a slave to all

fake news type propagandists in the

world not only that my lords it is

contended that it is not the job of any

constitutional body to infantilize its

masses

feed their manufactured whims the courts

cannot treat the citizens of the country

as children because then the courts will

forever be forced to follow the whims of

these children

the purpose of the courts my Lord is

justice forgive me for repeating that

but I must do so in case the

stakeholders in my very public trial

forget that what is important is the

truth

that facts take precedence over feelings

and it is in fact the duty of the Court

the duty of all noble men and women of

the audience and the duty of every

rightful citizen to uphold that virtue

it is only in fear that we Bend away

from the truth

and we cannot afford to be afraid

my lords

I encourage the honorable Court to see

my display of the flag as an act of

unconditional patriotism

if not my question to the court and the

petitioner is how else is one allowed to

be proud of their identity in foreign

lands

in a foreign competitive environment in

a foreign competitive environment of

such prominence in a silent and symbolic

fashion

flags are after all meant to be the

symbol of national pride as mentioned in

the piinha

if this is not the display of national

pride my Lord what is

and this display of national pride is

preserved for me under Article 19 of the

Constitution of India Charge 4 My Lord

defamation

now we have arrived at the most real

part of this entire situation my Lord

the charges of defamation should tell

the court and the public that all this

disrespecting national flag drama comes

only for the sake of bringing people on

their side so they can remedy the injury

to their self-concept

the petitioner wants only one thing from

the whole flag situation to silence me

and get my video removed and the charge

of defamation is only a tool to do the

same

I contend that this is not an issue of

national importance at all my Lord's not

how carefully the petitioner is attached

his concerns of injury to self-concept

with the concerns of the nation

which I have rightfully proven are void

and malicious if not void and

incompetent

in fact my lords my appeal to the court

is to see the petition for what it truly

is

a personal Vengeance mask behind a

non-issue that has been extrapolated to

National concern

my opponent seems to think what hurts

him can be dressed in another way to say

it hurt the people it seems that either

my opponent thinks too highly of their

own sentiment or to little of the

sentiment of the people to make that

equivalence

it is laughable what the petitioner

seems to manufacture

however I must begin by responding to

the charges itself

foreign

foreign

foreign first of all my lords over the

many messages posts and videos that the

petitioner has sent written and uploaded

he has never mentioned what

is it that I have said that is

defamatory

my Lord's of a person was to send a

notice and say one has committed a crime

and not say which crime or where exactly

will one take it seriously the

petitioner has tried to sound so

professional in their public language

but I failed to mention even once what

part of my creative work they find so

offensive to their own self

why has the petitioner not mentioned

even one instance of said defamation

pointedly

simply because there is none

simply because there is none

however my lords the petitioner has

continued to say everywhere in at least

four occasions how I have used gullies

or been derogatory and defamatory

is the petitioner seriously interested

in accusing me of defamation or do they

only want to create a public sentiment

of this nature

notice my lords again how his concerns

of defamation are carefully stitched

with the concerns of the national flag

and followed up with let us take a stand

for our nation's dignity

bar video post message

batao Naina opportunities

secondly my lords

this man who refuses to point out one

instance of defamation is the same man

who has accused me of creating communal

tensions that could lead to riots his

words

not mine

and National disrespect over the last

two months

notice the pattern of exaggerated claims

my Lord I am a 26 year old student

sitting in the United States and I have

somehow Disturbed National peace twice

in two months from from the United

States while I also finished my

education and built my career

does nothing sound wrong to you with

this if this is not slander and

defamation

how is me calling his content mediocre

or making a meme on him definitely

I feel like the court has to look into

bigger things before they begin to

decide if calling someone mediocre is

defamatory and the petitioner needs to

introspect something that they are

famous for teaching the word me your

defamation is

foreign

thirdly my lords note the malice in my

accuser's actions

notice on 24th May one day after I put

out my video responding to his first

bout of bullying he tweeted for the

first time in several years what was the

Tweet you know why he rose from the dead

on Twitter to post this because issues

of nationalism are more likely to catch

fire on Twitter and the petitioner knows

that

not only that why has the petitioner

continued to use the issue of national

flag as illegal backing to turn the

public against me when they know there

is no case

given that not knowing the law or in

this case not knowing what is not law

is no excuse especially for the

petitioner it would seem that the

petitioner is merely trying to waste the

time of the Court

or

perhaps a better question to ask is why

has the petitioner not read up on the

charges they seek to pursue

why has the petitioner not read up on

the charges they seek to pursue in front

of the court or in public in front of

Two and a Half crore people

did they even know that flag code of

India is not a law and thus I cannot be

legally charged under the flag code of

India or that pinha doesn't apply

outside India if they did not one must

question the desperation behind the

motivation to legally charge me with

whatever googlable words they could come

up with in the first five seconds

something that is not even a law

if they did then my lords one must ask

if they assume that the audience is too

stupid to find out that they are

outright lying

if not just reducing themselves to a

complete embarrassment

or perhaps my lot something worse as a

foot

perhaps my opponent doesn't even care if

some people find out as long as the

scrollers and the Casual consumers

believe what my petitioner has said on

the face of it

this is the very modus operandi of fake

news and propagandists my Lord

from the book of gobbles himself my

lords is this man even fit to yield the

audience size that he does anymore a

proper propagandist a liar and a

manipulator with 23 million people

watching him

that is dangerous

fourthly my lords it is important to

point out the circumstance in which the

petitioner uploaded the edited video of

me with the flag and removed it and then

uploaded it again

the petitioner uploaded the edited flag

video for the first time on 5th July on

his second Channel Sandeep maheshwari

spirituality with a post on his main

Channel Sandeep maheshwari to build

pressure on me to remove my video hello

Sandeep maheshwari this case is a lot of

Sandeep maheshwari my lords I refuse to

bow

so the next day the petitioner sent me a

private apology and said they will

delete their video and their post a

change of heart one might say but not

quite this was a trick my Lord as soon

as they sent me this private apology

over text with a promise to delete their

videos they quickly sent me an email

saying now I have deleted my videos as

per our conversation you delete your

videos

my lords note that this email was sent

to make something official that did not

even exist

they manufactured an agreement under the

excuse of an apology and quickly tried

to make it official using emails

I responded with this

and refused to comply with any of the

petitioners trickery

this got the petitioner angry and this

made him upload the video again this

time on their main channel to two and a

half crore people to raise the stakes on

the pressure they put on me tomorrow

fifthly my lords please notice the size

of our audiences

the petitioner put up posts and videos

for 23 million people which my Lord must

note is equal to the total number of

Indians on a platform like Twitter which

itself is a very serious concern to the

courts

saying that it was not that he felt

insulted about himself but that he was

in fact insulted for the nation

23 million people is a lot of people my

lords if the courts concern themselves

with a fraction of this number when it

comes to issues of fake news censorship

and such on Twitter and hold Twitter and

Facebook legally responsible for fake

news then the honorable Court must hold

the petitioner responsible for spreading

misinformation if that is indeed what

the courts conclude foreign

people for over two months that I want

them to somehow be offended and fight

try to manufacture a Twitter Trend to

silence me use fake legal charges to

create a specific public sentiment try

cheap childish trickery and when they

failed try to build humongous public

pressure on me out of spite and this man

wishes to sue me for defamation

I asked the court to point out one

instance where anything I said about my

opponent was defamatory or nearly as bad

as insulting the nation's dignity or

causing communal tensions

what I said was mere criticism and humor

a response that only the ego cannot

Digest

lastly my lords

why would the petitioner go to such lens

to do this

there is only one simple answer for me

to remove my video where I stand up to

his bullying

the man cannot tolerate that someone is

unafraid of him and that someone is

right in that disagreement with him

the man wants absolute control and will

go to any extent to manage that and I

refuse to be his victim any longer

like I said in the beginning this is not

a case for the nation's Pride but a case

for the individual's ego

so with that my lords I ask shall we

appear in the courts and do this

properly

Sandeep maheshwari subscribe

my name is

foreign

foreign

foreign

foreign

foreign

the only leverage I get against this man

because he will go to whatever extent

whenever he wants is speaking to you

guys

logic rational rationality dimag

um reason

public reputation but hopefully we will

not do this anymore hopefully this is

the last of it hopefully you learned

something new from this

um

but beyond that dude what a ride

we'll be back next week with more

content and then from there Guardians