Radhika

*STATEMENT* As per reports, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court today has issued notice to me in a plea seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings over one of my reports concerning the appearance of conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias in Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma hearing the CBI appeal in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The petitioner alleges that my report contains “serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations” against Justice Sharma. I stand firmly by my reporting. The report was based entirely on documentary material: RTI data furnished by the Ministry of Law & Justice, the judge’s own judicial orders in Criminal Revision Petitions, publicly available records, and statements made by a sitting Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court himself. Not a single fact reported by me has been rebutted either by the judge concerned or by the CBI in any of the proceedings, including the suo-motu contempt proceedings. In that backdrop, an unattached third party has now come into the picture. That said, since the matter now directly concerns me and is sub-judice, it will not be appropriate to comment further on the merits at this stage. I shall place my response before the Court after consulting distinguished members of the Bar, eminent legal luminaries, and respected members of the fraternity. The constitutional guarantee of free speech includes the right, not just of journalists, but of every citizen, to fairly scrutinise and critique judicial functioning and administrative decisions that have a bearing on public confidence in the institution. The faith in the institution can never be strengthened through opacity or the chilling of public scrutiny. Journalism that seeks to uncover these uncomfortable facts in the largest of public interests is part of the constitutional duty of the fourth pillar. Questions cannot be contempt.✊🏻 #JournalismIsNotACrime

#UmarKhalidBailPlea: Can you fathom the absurdity of this? The Supreme Court of India says "continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo as against them" in the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. In other words, Justice Aravind Kumar means that although a constitutional court can grant bail if the period of incarceration is long, unjustified, or disproportionate, in the case of Khalid and other, the time in jail is NOT YET long enough, the delay is NOT YET shocking or unconstitutional, and that Article 21 right to life and liberty has NOT BEEN VIOLATED yet! The constitutional right to liberty has NOT reached a level STRONG ENOUGH to defeat the draconian UAPA bail prohibition! FIVE YEARS in jail without possibility of trial starting is not good enough for Hon'ble Lordships Justice Aravind Kumar and Prasanna Varale!

#YearInReview: Like every year, I come before you with a review of my work. 2025 has been a year of generosity and grace, of receiving help, warmth, and validation from people who saw my work and respected it. It has also been a year of strain: long stretches of self-doubt, exhaustion, and a constant negotiation with myself to be better. Sometimes I rose to the occasion. And at other times, I only learned where I fell short. This year, I stepped into new routines and unfamiliar terrains, took on new kinds of labour, and even marched ahead to find collective ways of articulating anguish (AQI protests). I won’t romanticise this but I will say it plainly: living and working independently, without the safety net of an institution, has been worth every second. The freedom is terrifying, yes, but it is also deeply honest. As I step into a new year, I carry with me a few unfinished tasks (my first book is top on that list) which I am determined to complete at the earliest. I hope to begin a few new projects as well, and I trust that the generous, thoughtful people who have walked alongside me on this professional journey will continue to do so. I often tell friends that Twitter has been a blessing. People here have reached out without obligation or agenda, offering wisdom, help, critique, and encouragement. That kind of unsolicited solidarity is rare, and I do not take it lightly. To all of you: thank you. I will try to do even better in 2026! Now, a thread of my work. Chronology samajhiye.

#ALARMING: Couldn’t breathe in Delhi anymore. Had to “escape” to the hills for a couple of days. Never imagined one would have to escape their own city just to *BREATHE*. Where have we come? What have we become? The AQI is *HAZARDOUS* at this hour in Delhi. The PM2.5 level is 25 TIMES the WHO safe standard. The government is completely *DISINTERESTED* in tackling this public health crisis on a WAR-FOOTING! Instead, now the Delhi Chief Minister is seeking answers from the protesters, asking them where they were for the last 27 years! Unfortunately, little does she know, that people have been protesting since 2013 or so. Such is the level of apathy and unawareness! We are doomed as a society. It is the complete FAILURE of the Indian society to collectively tackle their most pressing issues! Shame on each one of us. @PMOIndia @JPNadda @byadavbjp @gupta_rekha @mssirsa (Writing this while I smile in rage.)

The Vanashakti judgment authored by Justice Abhay Oka was one of the Supreme Court’s most progressive and well-balanced decisions on environmental protection. Its recall by a larger bench reeks of malice. As I had first pointed out in my column for @frontline_india, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was hearing the review applications, led by CREDAI—the largest association of Real Estate Developers, against this judgment WITHOUT including Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Bhuyan J. had been part of Justice Oka’s original bench and a review ought to lie before a bench he is part of. Couple of days after the piece was published, Justice Bhuyan was added to the CJI-led bench. Now comes this recall. How could the Court permit such environmental destruction? The logic by the majority, including Justice Vinod Chandran is astonishing. A company may begin a project, cut down trees that are hundreds of years old, damage the surrounding ecology, and then simply PAY the government later to get the clearance. The Chief Justice in his judgment expresses concern for projects that had already begun and were awaiting clearance and uses this, along with other things, as the basis for recalling the judgment. But if that was truly the concern, he could easily have cleared only those projects “in larger public interest,” as he repeatedly claims. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent, therefore, rightly calls this abhorrent majority judgment “a step in retrogression.” The Supreme Court took one step forward, only to take two steps back shortly after the original original judge retired. There is simply no finality when it comes to Supreme Court cases. Corporates with deep pockets can keep filing applications against a judgment until it lands before the "right" judge!

#CallForDemocraticProtest against Air Pollution Emergency. People of Delhi please organise peacefully in large numbers and save your city. Save yourselves. Save your children. Save your parents, your loved ones. This is a bi-partisan issue. People from all walks of life and political leanings should join.