The Constituent Assembly Debates wing of the Centre for Law & Policy Research announces CON∙QUEST 2018, India’s Premiere National Quiz on the Indian Constitution, History and Politics.

There will be 4 (Four) Regional Rounds
North Regional Round — September 01, 2018, National Law University, DELHI.

East Regional Round — September 06, 2018, St. Xavier’s College, KOLKATA.

West Regional Round — September 15, 2018, Symbiosis Law School, PUNE.

South Regional Round — September 28, 2018, School of Law, Christ University, BENGALURU.

The Finals National Round — September 28, 2018, School of Law, Christ University, BENGALURU.

For more information and registration details you may refer to the following:


Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi & Foundation for Media Professionals Invite you to a panel discussion on

 Decriminalizing Defamation: Global perspectives on punishments for speech
Monday, 9 September 2013
Press Club of India, Raisina Road, New Delhi
3.30 pm
Keynote address:
Manish Tewari
Union Minister for Information & Broadcasting
Peter Noorlander
CEO, Media Legal Defence Initiative, London
Nani Jansen
Freedom of Expression Lawyer with International Experience
Chinmayi Arun
Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
President, Foundation for Media Professionals

August 2013

Centre for the Study of Law and Governance
Jawaharlal Nehru University
cordially invites you to a series of
Special Distinguished Lectures
Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar,
Delhi High Court
Judicial Engagement with Economic and Social Rights in India
Profesor  S.K. Sopory, Vice–Chancellor, JNU
will inaugurate and chair the first lecture
at 5 pm on 23 August 2013
in the Conference Room at CSLG
Lecture I:  The Universe of Economic and Social Rights
24 August 2013
Lecture II: The Recognition and Enforcement of Survival Rights
Lecture III: The Role and Responsibility of the ‘least dangerous branch’
10:00 am-1:00 pm
Directions: From JNU main gate, proceed straight until you get to a T-junction. Turn left. Continue until you reach a second T-junction. Turn right. Follow the road for just 0.7 km until you see a bus stop labelled “Paschimmabad.” About 50m past the bus stop turn right at a sign that reads “Centre for Study of Law and Governance.” CSLG building is on the right.

July 24

*** Public Lecture by Professor Thomas Pogge ***
The Institute for Human Development (IHD) in association with The Centre for Development and Human Rights (CDHR) is pleased to invite you to a lecture by Professor Thomas Pogge on July 24th, 6:00pm at the IIC (Lecture Hall 1, Annexe).  The title of the lecture is ‘Severe Poverty, Human Rights and Institutional Design.’ Further details of the event are provided below.
Professor Pogge is Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University, and is among the most eminent intellectuals of our time.  He is the author of more than 28 books and 54 journal articles, with leading contributions to the fields of global justice and human rights.  Professor Pogge has delivered 880 public lectures in 44 countries, and is the author of a celebrated TED talk, which has already been viewed some 180,000 times online: TED Talk “Reimagining pharmaceutical innovation,” Saturday, September 24, 2011,
Besides being a leading scholar, Professor Pogge is committed to bringing his academic work on global poverty to public audiences, policy makers and NGOs across the world.  His current work is focused on a team effort toward developing a complement to the pharmaceutical patent regime that would improve access to advanced medicines for the poor worldwide (  He is also the founder and  president of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP), an international network that aims to enhance the impact  of scholars, teachers and students on global poverty eradication by promoting their collaboration and outreach ( A chapter of ASAP (ASAP-India) was launched at Delhi University in October 2011.  
We are indeed honoured to have Professor Pogge speak at event co-organized by CDHR.  We hope that you will be able to attend the lecture, and also the high tea at 5:30pm.  Looking forward to meeting you on July 24th!
Dr. Mitu Sengupta, on behalf of CDHR (

Transnational Torture: Law, Violence and State Power in India and the U.S.


Cordially invites you to

Discussion of a new book by Dr Jinee Lokaneeta, Associate Professor in Political Science, Drew University, USA

on Custodial Torture in Liberal Democracies


Panelists : Ms Vrinda Grover, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court; Prof Aditya Nigam, CSDS; Prof Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi; and author
Dr Jinee Lokaneeta

Chair : Shri Sankar Sen, IPS (retd.), and former Director General, National Human Rights Commission

Transnational Torture: Law, Violence and State Power in India and the U.S. (2012) brings out the extent to which torture has been practiced in liberal democracies, where there has been constant negotiation with and accommodation of excess violence by the state

(Orient Blackswan, 2012)

(NYU Press, 2011) 

May 20

May 4

Seminar on Sex and Morality under the Indian Constitution in the Context of
Conflicting Perspectives of Cultural Groups.

Organised by Constitutional Cause
May 4
at ILI Auditorium, Opp. to Supreme Court, New Delhi.
at 4.30 p.m.

Justice P.V.Reddi, Chairman, Law Commission is the chief guest.


May 3

3rd May, 2012
3pm to 5pm

Gandhi Peace Foundation, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, Near ITO, New Delhi.

The Citizens Initiative for Peace, a network of citizens which came
into existence in August  2009, has been aiming for the past three
years for the ending of hostilities between the Maoists and the state
and central governments, in the interests of the people.

We demand that the Maoists must at the earliest and unconditionally
release Alex Menon, the District Collector of Sukma, Chhattisgarh. We
welcome the release of MLA Jina Hikaka.

At the same time, the Government must stop the mass arrests and
continued illegal detention in jail of several hundred adivasis,
activists and innocents in the name of Maoism. Many of them have never
got legal representation or fair trial, and suffer severe
overcrowding, health problems and mental torture in jail. A committee
must be constituted and these cases reviewed. All frivolous cases must
be dropped and people released at the earliest.

We appeal to both sides to continue the present ceasefire in Orissa
and Chhattisgarh, extend it nationally for at least six months, and
prepare for Peace Talks. It is our firm belief that the Government
must take the initiative in this.

In order to discuss these demands, we are meeting on the 3rd of May,
2012 at the Gandhi Peace Foundation, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, Near
ITO. Please join us and help in strengthening the voice for a just

A press conference will be held soon after the meeting at 5 p.m. at
Gandhi Peace Foundation.  Speakers include:

Swami Agnivesh
Nandini Sundar
Annie Raja
Ravi Hemadri

December 7, 2011
The Council for Social Development Hyderabad invites papers for the National Workshop “CHALLENGES TO CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA” with   SPECIAL FOCUS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF ADIVASIS on   January 31-1st February 2012.

Socio economic rights have not received the kind of attention that civil and political rights have received both from the state and the legal community. There is a perception that these are not enforceable rights as much as enabling provisions which the state at its discretion may provide for. This perception is changing slowly due to the pressure mounted by civil society groups which have called for the recognition of the right to food, health, education and environment. The amendment to the Constitution to include the right to education and legislations such as The Right to Education Act and pending legislations such as the Food Security Act are signs of an awakening to these rights.


Schedule V and Schedule VI of the Constitution of India set out the specific protections for areas in which the Scheduled Tribes are concentrated and are notified as Scheduled Areas by a Presidential Order.  Schedule V especially has been described by human rights advocates as a constitution within a constitution.  The criteria for declaring any area as a “scheduled area” under the Fifth Schedule are: preponderance of tribal population; compactness and reasonable size of the area; a viable administrative entity such as a block, taluk or district; economic backwardness of the area as compared to the neighbouring areas. The area notified under the fifth schedule cannot be altered in any manner whatsoever, except by a presidential order.  Article 275(1) of the Constitution provides for Special Central Assistance to the Tribal Sub Plan from the Consolidated Fund, in addition to earmarked resources.


In addition to these specific constitutional provisions, the evolution of constitutional law around Article 21 [the right to life and personal liberty] has brought the range of Directive Principles of State Policy that are focused on the delivery of economic and social rights within the scope of the right to life.  Article 21A, the right to education is another specific right that is extremely significant to adivasi communities.


In terms of legislative thrust as well, there is visible a marked convergence in the articulation of rights to autonomy, governance, social and economic rights embodied in the recently enacted Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Significant to the enactment of the Forest Rights Act is the international validation of the self-governance of the commons by local communities.  The international discussion and debate on the commons sets out the standards for the appreciation of local approaches to common property resources and the legal recognition of the same. 


While this is only one of the most recent debates that foreground the range of rights from economic and social rights, the debate has evolved from the mechanisms around the ICSECR at the international level and the regulation of land transfer and related measures at the national and state level, linked to the constitutional protections and policy measures outlined above.


Despite this clear and unambiguous official recognition of economic and social rights of adivasi communities, we find these communities mired in poverty and negative/contested compliance with economic and social rights along every indicator – literacy, education, health, economic activity and access to forest environments and the commons and access to justice.  Displacement due to conflict and development induced displacement are major impediments to securing economic and social rights for adivasis, with the absence of due diligence by the state compounding the problems of physical and livelihood insecurity.  This fact of negative compliance to established and legally recognized standards and regulatory frameworks has been acknowledged by several reports [including official reports] on the adivasi question in contemporary India. 


These are the issues that the two day workshop will deliberate on. The National Workshop will also inaugurate the legal aid clinic programme in CSD that will be tied to a rolling internship programme for students of law, social work, social sciences and human rights who are interested in honing their skills for advocacy and litigation interventions in the field of adivasi rights.  We also invite students who are contemplating doctoral research in the area of Adivasi Rights to affiliate with the ongoing research programme, initially through an internship, which can be developed under supervision/co-supervision by CSD faculty into a doctoral project.
The Legal Aid Clinic Programme
The primary aim of the legal aid clinic programme is to promote positive compliance to the framework of economic and social rights for adivasi communities along several axes, and to systematically build knowledge in this area that speaks to the complex network of protections that exist on paper and therefore must be translated into rights practice.
There is a need for an extensive archiving of legal cases on health, education, land, forest displacement from across the country with a view towards developing comprehensive strategies to deal with them. Since this is a little addressed issue in law, the clinical programme will have a mentoring programme of students, practitioners and lawyers being provided with the resources to develop an informed approach towards addressing adivasi rights issues on the ground.
Themes for the Workshop
The conference proposes four major streams in the area of Adivasi rights.
  • Understanding Adivasi rights
  • Social exclusion and the law
  • Economic citizenship and Adivasis
  • Challenges to Clinics in the area of adivasi rights
Interested participants are required to submit a five-page note on any of the sub themes of the workshop to Professor N. Vasanthi at [email protected] by the 6nd of January 2012.  Shortlisted participants will be intimated immediately thereafter.
Internship programme:
CSD also announces an internship programme for students of law, social work, social sciences and human rights. Internships are open throughout the year and students may apply at any time. The intake will be restricted to two interns for periods ranging from four to eight weeks full-time. 
The internship programme will focus on socio economic rights of adivasi communities. Students interested in the internship programme should submit a three page note on socio-economic rights of adivasis/indigenous communities on the basis of which selection of interns will be made. Applications for internships may be sent to Professor N. Vasanthi at [email protected]

November 23, 2011

The National Law School of India Review, the flagship journal of National Law School of India University, Bangalore is pleased to present the first NLSIR Public Law Symposium to be held on 10 December, 2011 at the National Law School campus. The theme of the symposium is “Adjudication of Socio-Economic Rights by the Indian Supreme Court“, an issue which has seen significant legal developments in the recent past. The symposium will be attended by renowned legal luminaries including Justice Muralidhar, Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, Mr. Shyam Diwan, Prof. U.R. Rai, Prof. B.B. Pandey and Mr. Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam, amongst others.
 The discussion will be divided into two sessions. In the first session (scheduled between 10.30 A.M.-12.30 P.M.) the panel will discuss the substantive adjudication of socio-economic rights undertaken by the Supreme Court concerning questions of the ever-widening ambit of Article 21 and the content of the new rights so evolved. The changing nature of the relationship between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution due to such expansion will form an important part of the session. The second session (scheduled between 1.30 P.M.-3.30 P.M.) will focus on the manner in which the Supreme Court has enforced these rights and consider the variety of procedural innovations employed for the same, including PILs and continuing mandamus.
 The registration fee for the symposium is Rs. 500 for professionals. There is no registration fee for students. All those interested are requested to register their attendance at the following link:
 For any further details regarding the symposium, please contact Krishnaprasad K.V. (Chief Editor, NLSIR) at +91-9916589670 or Ashwita Ambast (Deputy Chief Editor, NLSIR) at +91-9986478265 or email us at [email protected]

August 31
Foundation for Media Professions (FMP) organised a seminar on the media’s coverage of  Anna Movement at IIC, New Delhi.  The multi-purpose hall, where it was held, was virtually over-flowing with many standing and listening to all the panelists for nearly 3 hours.  The panelists included, Prashant Bhushan, Aruna Roy, Yogendra Yadav, Vineet Narain, and journalists from print and electronic media.  The audience strongly contested the claim made from the dais that the Anna movement was spontaneous, the media’s role was limited, etc. A few revelations which one gathered, and paraphrased here:
* The Anna movement was a first great social movement in recent times. The media helped it to cross the threshold.  Once its crossed the threshold, its popularity was entirely due to its strength, rather than to the media. (YY)
* It is not fair to comment that the followers of Anna did not know the provisions of the Janlokpal Bill.  Even Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement had followers who did not quite understand his philosophy. (YY)
* The Anna Movement may reflect a number of conspiracies by different groups.  But it is not fair to say that one group’s conspiracy is predominantly behind it.  Many conspiracies can check each other, no harm. (YY)
* It is not proper to say that the critics of Janlokpal Bill are supporters of corruption.  But it is not fair to say that just because we believe in Jan Lokpal Bill, we are intolerant of alternative views. We have every right to express our views, go on fast.  Others are free too. (PB)
*PB is misrepresenting our criticism.  We say that those who are in the Anna movement brand the critics, which is not fair.(AR)
*If the media constantly says that gulabjamun cures diabetes, and then follows it  up with an opinion poll, of course, people are likely to say that gulabjamun cures diabetes. (VN)
*The reason why Jan Lokpal Bill omits NGOs and private sector from its purview is that there is no conflict of interest here, and any complainant is free to use the normal legal remedies to get redressal.  Whereas in the case of public servants, when the CBI investigates, there is a conflict of public interest, hence there is a need for a separate body. (PB)
*While YY claimed that the movement was inclusive, AR disagreed.

August 6
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) organised its Fourth National Convention in New Delhi today on the subject of judicial accountability and the Lokpal Bill.  Speakers included Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Anil Divan, Prashant Bhushan,A.B.Bardan,Arvind Kejriwal and Manoj Mitta.

June 25, 2011

Panel Discussion on Protection of Journalists

By Anuj Kapoor

As a tribute to J. Dey,the crime reporter in Mumbai who was killed recently, the Forum for Media Professionals held a panel discussion at India International Centre in New Delhi on the spate of attacks on journalists by state and non-state actors in different parts of the country. The discussion was moderated by Sagarika Ghose, of CNN-IBN. The panel consisted of seven journalists, many of whom had themselves been victims of such attacks. Attacks here mean not necessarily battery but also includes false implication in criminal cases, criminal intimidation etc.

Sachin Kalbag, Editor, Mid-day, talked about J Dey’s case. J Dey who had done many exposures was assassinated by unidentified persons on 11th June, 2011. Sachin said that investigation had not made any headway till now. He also mentioned the case of Tarakant Dwivedi who had been booked under the draconian Official Secrets Act, 1923 for merely writing an article describing that certain weapons which were bought post 26/11 are rotting due to leakage during the Mumbai rains.

Supriya Sharma, a TOI-correspondent from Chhattisgarh, who spoke next, told the gathering about how many incidents involving police excesses go unreported. The reasons she identified for this are that police threatens the local news sources in and around Dantewada and since the local scribes have to reside in the same area, it is easy to mount pressure on them and keep them from covering such stories. Other than this, she said, the funding model of many local dailies is also responsible for many incidents going unreported. This, she stated, was probably because many local dailies earn substantial revenue from the government advertisements, and would not report news against the same government. She spoke of one Sai Reddy, a local journalist in Bijapur whose wife used to run a ration shop. Since Reddy had brought to light certain cases of police abuses, he was booked and arrested by the police under the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act for aiding the Maoists by supplying them with ration etc.

On the conflict of interests for the media, Gautam Nalvakha remarked that many media houses in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are being given mining licences. It is but obvious that they would not report of the almost absolute opposition these projects receive in the public hearings. Supriya pointed out Dainik Bhaskar as case in point. Owned by media conglomerate DB Corp Ltd, this Hindi daily, Supriya said, even published false reports to justify the coal mining projects DB Power Ltd, a subsidiary of the DB group, is going to undertake.

Kumar Badal, a correspondent with Tehelka, spoke on how he had been made a victim at the hands of persecution by the NDA govt. After Tehelka’s crackdown on the corruption in defence deals, Badal said, since Tarun and Anirudh were difficult to get, the CBI falsely implicated him to ‘teach Tehelka a lesson’. He stated that he was tortured after being falsely involved and arrested in a poaching case. This is another illustration of the CBI working at the behest of the government in the centre. Badal stated that he hardly got any support from the media fraternity, excepting his own organisation Tehelka. Badal stated that the might of the state is too strong to be described. While the state actors get one arrested after falsely implicating the person in some criminal, the powerful non-state actors go the extreme way of contract killing. Threats are common in both. Badal’s story in the larger context of the attack against Tehelka can be read here.

K.K. Shahina was another victim of false implication. She said that the cause of her victimisation was her investigation in the fragile case portrayed by the Karnataka police against Abdul Nasar Madani as an accused in 2008 Bengaluru blasts. Instead of blindly following the police accusations against Muslims in terror cases, Shahina herself ventured to find the truth. Initially, a case under 506 IPC was framed against her for intimidating witnesses. Now she has also been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her hearing before the Karnataka High Court for anticipatory bail is to come up next week. A report on her implication can be read here.

Gautam, speaking next, briefed about his deportation from Srinagar Airport, which has been reported by Kafia here and here. He said that the government usually showed tolerance for rascality and hardly came out to support and upholding the freedom of the media.

Jatin Desai, a senior-journalist who has worked on various media-issues, said that in the past 20 years there have been an astounding 1750 cases of attack on/threat to media persons in Maharashtra. Out of these, 85 per cent of the cases were withdrawn by the state. He alleged that the Mumbai police had nexus with the underworld and that substantial part of the reason why no breakthrough had been made into J Dey’s case yet.

Desai pointed out that there was a need to have a separate law to protect journalists. A draft ordinance that was prepared during the tenure of ex-Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan proposes that offences against the media be made cognizable and non-bailable. In Maharashtra, this move received mixed responses from the Cabinet.

The issue of separate law for journalists has now been taken up by the Centre which is working on a draft law. One can argue that a separate law to protect journalists is not needed if the implementation of the existing laws is strengthened. A separate law for just journalists could be challenged as being discriminatory. The panellists didn’t really debate this issue, with Sagarika Ghose just fleetingly speaking against it. What came to fore was that the media should use its biggest tool, the pen, to protect itself. Instead of just one reporter from just one media agency covering/exposing a story, and becoming the lone target, the solution laid in other media houses giving support. This will, it was suggested, prevent individuals like J. Dey from being targeted. A distressing practice that was condemned by many on the panel was that the media agencies detach themselves from their scribe soon after trouble strikes.

JUNE 22, 2011

World Refugee Day: Report on a lecture

By Anuj Kapoor

The World Refugee Day was observed in New Delhi on June 20 by the UNHCR, India, with a lecture by Dr.B.S. Chimni, Professor, Centre for International Legal Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Dr. Chimni has been a visiting professor at various foreign universities and for a period of two years, was the VC at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. His areas of interest include international law, international trade law and international refugee law. Dr.Rajeev Dhavan, Director, PILSARC, presided over the function. Ms. Montserrat Feixas Vihe, Chief of Mission, UNHCR India, was also present on the dias. The topic of the lecture was “The Rights of Refugees: The 1951 Refugee Convention and Beyond”.

In his introductory speech, Dr. Dhavan posed to Dr. Chimni the question as to why states were unwilling to accept responsibility for refugees. Dr. Chimni began by stating that there were two options for him on how to take forward this opportunity to talk about the right of refugees, first was to discuss the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the rights recognized under it and explore the developing jurisprudence on the subject in international human rights law and humanitarian law; the second way was to examine the ‘structural reasons’ as to why the realization of the rights of refugees has been difficult. He chose to go ahead with the latter.

He began by citing Australia and Italy as examples where the state has been taking vigorous steps to keep the refugees away. In Australia, he said, the paramilitary forces were guarding the shores to keep asylum seekers away. He said that there history hasn’t seen a golden age of asylum till now. The closest that it has come was during the cold war era which was rather brief, and the reasons for it weren’t exactly founded on the principle of refugee protection.

At present, most of the developed countries keep their doors closed to refugees with the result that 80 per cent of the refugees are being hosted by the Third World countries. Another startling fact revealed was that despite displacement of people having increased many folds, actual number of asylum applications made in Europe has, in fact, reduced in the past few years. Most western states have a hostile attitude towards incoming refugees despite many such states being parties to the 1951 Convention.

Dr. Chimni spoke of the need to give effect to treaty obligations by bringing national legislations into force. Another structural reason he identified was that the civil society itself was not mobilized enough. There needs to be a shift from the existing charity based approach to a more rights based approach. Most states at present see refugees as passive acceptors of aid who should just accept whatever they get as charity. He compared their plight with those of persons with disability, whereto, unfortunately a charity based approach is still prevalent.

One fundamental reason for the charity based approach towards refugees is, as Dr. Chimni highlighted, that states maintain the belief that they owe accountability only to their own citizens, and not to aliens. Idealistically and philosophically speaking, he conceptualized that the idea of nationality or migration should not, and has never figured in discourses on the idea of justice, an example in point being the work of John Rawls.

Next reason he identified was the hegemony or dominance of the communitarian approach wherein the forces in the society work towards sustaining traditions, life forms and cultural practices and thereby making it unreceptive for aliens. He quoted Michael Wolzer as having said that “to take in large number of refugees is often necessary, but the right to restrain the flow is determined upon the community … blah blah”.

A perpetual state of international relations, wherein the basic tenet/goal is that of maximising power, guides the foreign policy and is also responsible for this lack of responsibility towards refugees. This picture of political realism does not contain any scope of morality or humanitarian considerations. Thus states engage themselves in protection of refugees only when it furthers their power objectives.

Post 9/11, security has also become a strong concern for nations while dealing with asylum seekers. Moving to UNHCR, he commented that the UN body is itself not very clear with its mandate on how to protect the rights of refugees. He said that the policies of UNHCR are donor-driven. The donors are the developed western states which shy away from honouring their 1951 Convention obligations, and thus they steer away UNHCR’s focus from refugees to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Thus, focus has now partially shifted to IDPs and forced migrants. In the broader picture, he noted, that these circumstances were used to justify humanitarian intervention. Thus, critical writing and discussion on status of refugees the world over was diminishing. Dr. Chimni suggested that the way forward is that there be greater production of critical literature on the issues of refugees and their problems, that there be set up an independent Committee for the Rights of Refugees which is uninfluenced by the donors of UNHCR.

After Dr. Chimni finished speaking, the floor was thrown open for questions and comments. An Iraqi refugee expressed discontent and anger with the west being the cause for the worsening plight of the refugees in the Middle East to which Dr. Dhavan later agreed. Another comment that came was about how the society gives so much importance to issues like nationality, race etc when all these are mere accidents by birth. A comparison was drawn between the uncongenial attitude of the states receiving refugees and the Indian states which receive a lot of migrant population.

Later, Ms. Montserrat Feixas Vihe responded to a few questions and Dr. Chimni’s views about UNHCR. She stated that the situation would have been much worse in the absence of the 1951 Convention, and that the hard but true fact about international organizations like the UNCHR is that their ability to help is dependent on the donation they get from various governments. She also stated that the division of the UNHCR’s work into IDPs-field is beneficial as it is an important issue to be addressed. Moreover, refugee protection still remains the primary concern of UNHCR, she said.

JUNE 21, 2011


As a tribute to murdered journalist J Dey, the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP) is holding a panel discussion on the spate of attacks on journalists, by state and non-state actors, in different parts of the country.

The panel will comprise journalists who have themselves been under attack or have witnessed their colleagues being harassed, in retaliation to hard-hitting investigative stories.

* Sachin Kalbag, editor of Midday (Mumbai), will speak on the circumstances in which Dey, one of his team members, was murdered on June 13 and Tarakant Dwivedi alias Akela, another staffer, was arrested under the Official Secrets Act on May 17 for his follow-up on 26/11.

* Jatin Desai, a senior Mumbai-based jouranalist who has espoused a host of media issues, including those emerging from Dey’s murder.
* Gautam Navlakha, consulting editor of Economic and Political Weekly, will talk about his “deportation” from the Srinagar airport on May 28.

* Supriya Sharma, Chhattisgarh correspondent of The Times of India, will give a first-hand account of how she and other journalists have been reporting from the “war zone” in Dantewada even as they are caught in the cross fire of Maoists and security forces.

* K K Shahina of Open magazine will speak on the criminal proceedings initiated against her in December by the Karnataka police for her expose on their communally-motivated investigation into a terror case.

* Kumar Badal will recall his six-month incarceration in 2002-03 on trumped-up charges of poaching as part of the infamous crackdown on Tehelka.

The discussion will be moderated by CNN IBN’s deputy editor Sagarika Ghose.

Where: India International Centre, Lodi Estate, New Delhi

When: June 23, Thursday, from 10.30 am to 1 pm, followed by lunch

FMP is a group of journalists set up three years ago to uphold media freedom and promote quality journalism. This is our 19th media dialogue. Please find attached the poster for the event.

As always, the event is open to everybody.

JUNE 14, 2011

Anuj Kapoor, 4th year student from Symbiosis Law School, Pune, will intern from today for 2-3 weeks. He will contribute to the LAOT’s newly added pages as well as to the Home Page.

JUNE 13, 2011

Arushi Garg completes her internship today. LAOT appreciates her contributions during the internship, and hopes she would continue her association with the blog.