Goodbye @SandeepSeminars
Summary
TLDRIn 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
📚 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.
🏛 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.
🎓 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.
🍾 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.
📜 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.
🥂 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.
👥 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.
🗣️ 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.
🤬 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.
📽️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Legal Team
💡Flag Code of India
💡Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (PINHA)
💡Jurisdiction
💡Intention
💡Defamation
💡National Flag
💡Columbia University
💡Public Sentiment
💡Personal Vendetta
💡Constitution of India
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
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Mar Mari Emmanuel's Response To His Suspension From The Assyrian Church
A FARSA DO IMPEACHMENT
KASUS VINA CUMA GUNUNG ES. PENYAKIT DITUBUH KEPOLISIAN SUDAH KRONIS? BERSAMA ALVIN LIEM
Why Relativism Will Lead to a Disintegrated Society | Vanessa Smiley | TEDxYouth@SAS
BREAKING NEWS: Trump Holds Surprise Press Briefing Following Supreme Court Ballot Eligibility Ruling
‘Beyond thin skinned, rude’: Andrew Weissmann tears into Trump’s defense team’s performance
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)