- 11 hours ago
The Supreme Court imposed a sweeping ban on an NCERT Class 8 textbook containing a chapter on judicial corruption, calling it a deep-rooted conspiracy to malign the institution.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hello everyone, you're watching NewsTrack with me, Maria Shaquille.
00:03The Supreme Court has schooled the NCRT and the central government
00:07and has ordered a sweeping ban on Class 8 textbooks with chapter on judicial corruption.
00:14The ban by the Apex Court has ignited a fierce constitutional debate.
00:19While the top court asserts that protecting the institution's integrity is paramount,
00:23critics argue that accountability and criticism are cornerstones of democracy.
00:31This episode raises a larger question.
00:34In a system built on checks and balances,
00:36can any institution, including the judiciary, be beyond scrutiny?
00:41We'll decode the big ban by the Supreme Court with top legal minds.
00:45Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Deepak Gupta,
00:49and former Tony General Mukul Rohadi will be joining me shortly.
00:52But first up, here's what happened today.
00:58They fired the gun and judiciary is bleeding.
01:01A visibly miffed top coat came down heavily on the NCRT
01:05and imposed a complete ban on further publication,
01:08printing and digital dissemination of Class 8 textbook
01:12that carried a chapter on corruption in the judiciary.
01:17The Chief Justice made it clear.
01:19As head of the judiciary, ensuring accountability is his duty.
01:24And in this case, he said, heads must roll.
01:29A three-judge bench of CGI, Justice Joymala Bakchi,
01:33and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ordered the immediate removal of the chapter
01:37from all physical and digital platforms.
01:39It directed authorities to cease printed copies already in circulation.
01:44The court also barred any teaching from the textbook.
01:48It also imposed a blanket prohibition on its production and distribution
01:52and issued a show cause notice to the centre and the NCRT chief,
01:57seeking an explanation.
02:00When the hearing began, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court
02:04that the NCRT has already withdrawn the textbook and apologised.
02:08But the CGI observed that the statement issued by NCRT carried no apology.
02:15So, what triggered this extraordinary intervention?
02:18A chapter that spoke of corruption at various levels of the judiciary.
02:23It said, corruption weakens access to justice.
02:26It noted that misconduct cases have dented public confidence
02:31and also flagged massive case backlogs.
02:34It also stated that instances of judicial corruption have surfaced in the past.
02:41Right after the rebuke, the Education Minister expressed regret
02:44and said that the government respects judiciary.
03:11Well, this isn't the first time that NCRT has faced judicial pushback.
03:15Earlier run-ins with a Delhi High Court and a Rajasthan Court did occur.
03:20But rarely has the response been this swift, this sweeping.
03:24Meanwhile, sources tell India today that even the Prime Minister
03:28in a recent Cabinet meeting objected to the inclusion of a corruption case
03:32involving the judiciary.
03:34Questioning both the suitability of the subject
03:37and the process that cleared it for publication.
03:40Meanwhile, opposition leaders are asking a pointed question.
03:44Why is the top court so swift here and not in other pending matters?
03:49Why did he not take suor-moto-cognizance
03:52when Himanta Biswasa Sharma,
03:55there is a video of Himanta Biswasa Sharma
03:56taking a gun and shooting Muslims?
03:58Of course, there are judges which are corrupt
04:00and we all know that there is a judge being investigated
04:03who was found with a lot of money.
04:06So, why not take suor-moto-cognizance
04:09on something so important as this?
04:11I want to ask Justice Surya Kant on this.
04:40The Supreme Court ban
04:41raises a larger constitutional debate.
04:43In a democracy built on checks and balances,
04:46is the judiciary beyond criticism?
04:49Can an institution demand accountability from others
04:51but draw a red line around itself?
04:54Bureau Report, India Today.
04:59And joining me first on the show is former Attorney General
05:02and Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Mr. Mukul Rohadgi.
05:06Mr. Rohadgi, in the Justice Yashwant Varma episode last year,
05:11when cash was allegedly found at the judge's residence,
05:15the court then spoke of due process and internal accountability.
05:20So why term a textbook reference to judicial corruption a conspiracy, sir?
05:28Look, the Yashwant Varma case has nothing to do with this article.
05:35Now please understand, you bring an article
05:38targeting the entire judiciary in this country
05:43and you put it in a class 8 textbook
05:46of NCRT.
05:49What are you trying to convey to young minds
05:52that the entire judicial system is corrupt
05:56and therefore there is complete lawlessness in this country
06:00and therefore nobody should follow the law
06:04and why only the judiciary corruption
06:09is a problem in the society as such?
06:12Whether it's bureaucracy, whether it is police,
06:15whether it is politicians,
06:17whether it is ministers,
06:18whether it is, you know, commercial enterprises,
06:22why are you targeting only the judiciary?
06:24I want to understand.
06:26There may be black sheep in the judiciary.
06:28There are black sheep everywhere.
06:30That does not mean that you paint everybody black
06:34and you have a democracy where rule of law
06:37and the judiciary plays an important part.
06:40You are virtually touting lawlessness in this country
06:44by telling young minds,
06:45hey, don't bother about the judiciary,
06:47it's completely corrupt,
06:47so don't go to courts,
06:49settle your disputes like the law of the jungle.
06:51Is that what you are conveying?
06:52It's a very, very sinister
06:55and a calculated attempt
06:57to somehow denigrate the judiciary.
07:00Okay.
07:00But Mr. Rodgi,
07:01where does legitimate academic discussion
07:04end and contempt begin?
07:07Can acknowledging rare instances of misconduct
07:11automatically amount to maligning the entire institution?
07:18No, madam,
07:19as I said,
07:20there are black sheep everywhere.
07:22Now,
07:23whether it is this case or that case,
07:26of course,
07:26those cases are bad.
07:28But that doesn't mean every judge
07:30or every stakeholder in the system is bad,
07:32every lawyer is also bad,
07:34because the corruption can't be
07:36with the,
07:38you know,
07:38the end of the judges.
07:39It also involves lawyers.
07:41It also involves private parties.
07:43Lawyers are,
07:43I mean,
07:44appearing before the courts every day.
07:46They are a medium
07:46between the client and the court.
07:48So lawyers are also corrupt.
07:50Lawyers are also taking money.
07:52There is no justice.
07:53There is all these judgments are all fake.
07:56I mean,
07:57what you are spreading is anarchy.
07:59So nobody is disputing the fact that the system may be slow.
08:03It may be tardy.
08:04You can blame the system.
08:05Like Tariq pe Tariq,
08:06all that is possible.
08:07But please remember,
08:09ultimately,
08:10the common man of this country,
08:12ultimately,
08:12when he gets no relief
08:14and all the doors are closed,
08:16ultimately,
08:17he turns to the judiciary.
08:20And judiciary,
08:22the strength of the judiciary
08:24rides on public opinion.
08:26Yes.
08:27It doesn't ride on
08:28what the judges think
08:29or what the aura of judges is.
08:31It is public confidence.
08:32It may be shaken to an extent
08:34because of delays
08:35and tardy process.
08:36Yes,
08:37I can understand.
08:38You have to tighten it up.
08:39But this is completely
08:41knocking the base out.
08:43And please tell me
08:44one thing,
08:45madam,
08:45why should it appear
08:47in a class 8 textbook?
08:49Is that the only medium?
08:51Why doesn't it appear?
08:52You know,
08:52you can have a debate.
08:55This is sponsored by the government.
08:56You can have a debate.
08:57Let us do something about judiciary.
09:00Let us do something about
09:01corruption with ministers.
09:02Let us do something about
09:03corruption here,
09:04we have a public debate.
09:05No problem.
09:06But why this kind of a,
09:09you know,
09:10a slip-in?
09:10This is a slip-in
09:11in a class 8 textbook.
09:14I mean,
09:15I find it intriguing.
09:17So,
09:17today,
09:18the Chief Justice of India
09:19took Suomoto notice.
09:21According to me,
09:22it is criminal contempt
09:23of the grossest nature.
09:25Okay.
09:25Criminal contempt
09:26is defined
09:27as interference
09:28with the course of justice.
09:29You are calling it
09:30criminal contempt?
09:31While a civil contempt
09:32is
09:32as between two individuals.
09:35That if there is an order
09:36and you breach an order,
09:37that is civil contempt.
09:39Criminal contempt
09:40is of different proportions,
09:41interfering with the course
09:43of justice,
09:44scandalizing the judiciary,
09:46denigrating
09:47the entire judiciary.
09:48You can criticize
09:49a judgment
09:50of a judge.
09:50No problem.
09:51No problem.
09:53You can criticize.
09:53Everyday people criticize.
09:54I also criticize.
09:55But to say that
09:57the whole judicial system
09:58is marred with corruption
09:59and virtually telling people,
10:02please read it
10:03and then don't bother
10:04about the judiciary.
10:05I mean,
10:06you are going to have
10:07a complete failure
10:08of democracy,
10:10a failure of an orderly system.
10:12Whatever little orderly system
10:13we have,
10:13then tell me,
10:16does erasing such content
10:18protect the judiciary's dignity
10:20or does it create
10:22the perception
10:22that the institution
10:23cannot tolerate
10:24uncomfortable conversations?
10:29Madam,
10:30it's not a case
10:31of uncomfortable conversation.
10:33See,
10:33this article
10:34doesn't target
10:36an individual.
10:36So,
10:37it is the concern
10:38of the bench
10:39and the bar
10:40that this is
10:41specifically targeting,
10:43according to me,
10:44it's a calculated attack.
10:45It's not just
10:46a negligent
10:47one-off kind of thing.
10:48And it's not
10:49uncomfortable
10:50in the sense
10:50that it doesn't
10:51target an individual
10:52but it targets
10:53the judiciary
10:54and therefore
10:54the Chief Justice of India
10:55as the head
10:56of the judicial family
10:57had to take some action
10:58and he has taken that.
11:00I fully endorse him.
11:00Okay,
11:01tell me,
11:01Saadan,
11:02who is really involved
11:03in this calculated attack
11:04or phrase
11:04that you have used?
11:05Do you think
11:06it should be
11:07investigated then?
11:10It should be
11:11investigated
11:11and that is what
11:12the Chief Justice
11:13has done today.
11:15It has to be
11:16investigated.
11:17It suddenly
11:17can't be
11:18slipped in
11:19by a school teacher.
11:20There's no question
11:21about it.
11:21Okay,
11:22should 13-year-olds
11:23be then shielded
11:24from discussions
11:25about judicial
11:26accountability?
11:31As I said,
11:32madam,
11:33you can have a debate
11:35whether 13 or 15
11:3613 may be a little
11:37too young.
11:38So,
11:39after passing
11:4012th
11:40or in first
11:41year,
11:42when you kind of
11:42in college,
11:43you come to grips
11:44with stepping out
11:45of,
11:46you know,
11:52a kind of
11:52a school
11:54kind of an era
11:55where you are
11:55sheltered.
11:56When you at least
11:57go to college,
11:57there is some
11:58opening up
11:59of public life,
12:00etc.
12:00that's a time
12:01that you can
12:02have debates.
12:03Why not?
12:03But not this
12:04kind of thing.
12:05This is certainly
12:05not what you
12:06are hinting at.
12:07Certainly,
12:07you can have
12:08debates.
12:08Debates about
12:09corruption
12:10everywhere.
12:11I'm not saying
12:11that brings me
12:14to my last
12:14question.
12:15What precedent
12:16does it set?
12:18If courts
12:19shape what
12:21can be said
12:22about them
12:22in textbooks,
12:23where does
12:24that leave
12:24the entire
12:25discussion
12:26around
12:27free speech
12:28and academic
12:29independence?
12:32Madam,
12:34free speech
12:34also has
12:35limitations.
12:37Every right
12:38under the
12:38constitution
12:39has limitations.
12:41Free speech
12:42doesn't mean
12:42that you can
12:43go on abusing
12:43everybody at
12:44large just
12:45because you
12:45feel that
12:46you have the
12:48right to free
12:48speech.
12:49It has
12:49boundaries like
12:50anything else.
12:51And this is
12:52certainly crossing
12:53all boundaries.
12:55All right.
12:56Mukul Rahadgi,
12:57former Attorney
12:57General,
12:58really appreciate
12:58your time.
12:59Thank you
12:59for joining
13:00us.
13:01Joining me
13:01now is
13:02Professor
13:03Chandrabhushan
13:04Sharma,
13:05who's an
13:05educationist.
13:06Professor
13:07Sharma,
13:07there's a lot
13:08of discussion
13:08which is
13:08happening and
13:09a sense
13:10certainly among
13:11the members
13:13of the judiciary
13:14and the
13:15bar is that
13:16there is a
13:16larger conspiracy
13:17to malign
13:19the entire
13:19judiciary.
13:23I want
13:24to see it
13:25as
13:25conspiracy to
13:27malign
13:27judiciary.
13:28I will
13:29say this
13:29is
13:29incompetence
13:30of the
13:31agency
13:32charged with
13:33the duty
13:33to design
13:34and develop
13:35textbooks.
13:37My first
13:38take on it
13:39would be
13:39that there
13:41is corruption
13:41in society
13:42and we
13:43need to
13:44make our
13:44children aware
13:45that
13:47corruption
13:48destroys
13:49society so
13:50be away
13:50from it
13:51and shout
13:52against it
13:53because we
13:54are products
13:55of our
13:55own
13:55education.
13:56Now it
13:57is important
13:58for us
13:58to make
13:58our
13:59children
13:59aware so
14:00I would
14:00go for it
14:01that we
14:01should talk
14:02about corruption
14:03in society,
14:04talk about
14:05corruption in
14:06politics,
14:07talk about
14:07corruption in
14:08bureaucracy,
14:10talk about
14:10corruption in
14:11education.
14:12Everybody in
14:13the society
14:14is concerned
14:15about corruption
14:15in education.
14:16why don't
14:17you talk
14:17about corruption?
14:18Professor
14:18Sharma,
14:19the point
14:19that has
14:19been made
14:20by Mukul
14:20Rohadgi and
14:21I have been
14:21speaking to
14:22several members
14:23of the judiciary
14:24in the last
14:25few hours,
14:26the sense
14:26certainly is
14:27that it
14:28cannot be
14:28seen as
14:29one-off
14:29and that
14:30this particular
14:31paragraph
14:32was inserted
14:33in a
14:33slym way.
14:35Exactly.
14:36I completely
14:37agree and
14:38that's the
14:38point.
14:39Then who is
14:40responsible?
14:41Who do you
14:42think should
14:42be held
14:43accountable for
14:44this?
14:44NCRT chief?
14:45Some time
14:45back, we
14:47had discussed
14:47the regulation
14:492026 released
14:51by the
14:51University Grants
14:52Commission and
14:53I had taken
14:53a point or
14:54a view that
14:55the UGC is
14:56responsible, it
14:57is an autonomous
14:58institution,
14:59government should
15:00not be put in
15:01dock.
15:01In this case,
15:02the government
15:02is squarely in
15:03the dock.
15:04The Minister
15:05for Education
15:05happens to be
15:06the chairperson
15:07of the Council
15:08of NCRT and
15:09only the minister
15:10approves the
15:11textbooks, nobody
15:12else.
15:13Now, the
15:14director NCRT
15:15should be
15:15squarely held
15:16responsible.
15:17I see that the
15:18Supreme Court
15:18says that some
15:19heads would
15:20roll, the
15:20head of the
15:21director NCRT
15:22must roll.
15:23He is not an
15:23educationist, he
15:24has never taught
15:25in a classroom, he
15:26is an historian and
15:27he has been given
15:28charge of the
15:29NCRT.
15:29He doesn't know
15:30the difference
15:31between syllabus
15:32and curriculum.
15:34I am very sure
15:35that this person
15:36doesn't know what
15:37a textbook should
15:38be, what
15:38children are,
15:39what they should
15:40be taught.
15:41the NCRT has
15:43put the
15:43government in a
15:45very difficult
15:46situation in the
15:46last few years
15:47and this is
15:48squarely because
15:49of the director
15:50NCRT that he
15:51doesn't understand
15:52school education.
15:53My question is
15:54if you feel that
15:55the NCRT has
15:56embarrassed the
15:57government, then
15:58if, and you
15:59say that this has
16:00been happening
16:00over the last
16:01few years, then
16:03what has been
16:03really done to
16:05ensure that these
16:05mistakes are not
16:07made by the
16:07NCRT?
16:09No, nothing
16:10has been done.
16:11We have discussed
16:11many issues related
16:12to textbook of
16:13NCRT in the
16:14recent past and
16:16nothing has
16:16happened, nothing
16:17changes.
16:18Just asking for
16:19apology, I have
16:20read the apology
16:20letter that the
16:21NCRT has issued
16:22that that is
16:23nothing.
16:24I mean, you have
16:25spent crores of
16:26public money
16:27publishing these
16:29textbooks, distributing
16:30it and now
16:31withdrawing it
16:32doesn't help.
16:32The government
16:33money has been
16:34spent and somebody
16:35must be responsible
16:36to my
16:37understanding, the
16:38director NCRT
16:39should be put in
16:40the dock and
16:40immediately sent on
16:41leave.
16:42What happened with
16:42the vice-chancellor
16:43of Nehu?
16:44What happened with
16:45the vice-chancellor
16:45of Tejpur?
16:46You sent them on
16:47leave because they
16:48erred.
16:49But why don't you
16:49send the director
16:50NCRT on leave and
16:52let the inquiry take
16:53place till it is
16:55fixed?
16:56I am very confident
16:57of the view that
16:59the director NCRT has
17:01failed to really
17:02manage the NCRT in
17:03the last few years
17:04that he has been
17:05director and
17:07time and again
17:08the NCRT errs on
17:10many occasions and
17:12nothing happens.
17:13In this case, I
17:14believe a very
17:15important organization
17:16of the nation.
17:17We must believe in
17:18our judiciary and
17:20this textbook has
17:21put the whole
17:22judiciary in the
17:23dock.
17:24I think the NCRT
17:26is responsible and
17:27because the
17:28minister of education
17:30happens to be the
17:31chair of the
17:31council, we will
17:33have to ask the
17:34council chairman,
17:35the minister,
17:35honourable minister
17:36for education,
17:37what action are you
17:38taking against the
17:39director of the
17:39NCRT?
17:39So, let's wait and
17:40see whether the
17:41government actually
17:41takes action against
17:42the director of the
17:43NCRT.
17:44Professor Sharma, I
17:44appreciate your time.
17:45Joining me now is
17:47former Supreme Court
17:48judge, Justice
17:49Deepak Gupta.
17:50Justice Gupta, thank
17:51you.
17:52The Supreme Court has
17:53called the textbooks
17:54a reference to
17:54judicial corruption a
17:56deep-rooted
17:57conspiracy, sir, to
17:58malign this
17:59institution.
18:01But corruption in
18:02politics, police and
18:03bureaucracy is routinely
18:05discussed in civics
18:06books.
18:06Is the judiciary then
18:08appearing unusually
18:10defensive here?
18:11And, sir, the other
18:12view would be that in a
18:13democracy, shouldn't
18:15constitutional institutions
18:17be open to scrutiny?
18:21No, no, there is no
18:22question that there can be
18:24no doubt that all
18:25constitutional authorities
18:26should be open to
18:26scrutiny.
18:27But I don't think so.
18:29I don't agree with you
18:30that the others have been
18:32castigated as there is
18:34corruption in other
18:35servings, as what I
18:36could make out from the
18:37newspaper reports and
18:38what little I could see
18:39from the article, the
18:41book in question, what I
18:43have said.
18:44It only makes reference to
18:46the judiciary, not to
18:47politicians, not to the
18:49executive, not to the
18:50police, not to anybody
18:51else.
18:52It only, and please
18:53remember, we are dealing
18:54with class 8 kids.
18:58We are not dealing with
18:59some at a much higher
19:01level.
19:02I am the last person to
19:03say that if there is, the
19:05areas of the judiciary should
19:06not be discussed.
19:07But should they be discussed
19:08in a class 8 book?
19:10And look at that article, if
19:13you read that article, it
19:14doesn't point out anything
19:15good in the judiciary.
19:17It also paints it all in
19:19dark shades of grey and
19:20black.
19:20That is not the way books
19:22are to be written.
19:23But there is also this
19:25fact that repeatedly when
19:26it is about politics and
19:28police and bureaucracy, the
19:31challenges that they face
19:32has been spoken about.
19:34The court here, Justice
19:36Gupta argued that a 13
19:38year old should not be
19:40exposed to what it termed
19:42biased misconceptions.
19:44But isn't civic education
19:46meant to prepare young
19:47citizens to understand both
19:49the strengths and also the
19:51challenges of institutions?
19:55Well, where are the
19:56strengths?
19:57Can you point out, Mr.
19:59Keel, where are the
19:59strengths of the judiciary
20:00pointed out in that
20:01article?
20:04Only the weaknesses are
20:05pointed out.
20:06There are long delayed
20:06cases.
20:07There is this.
20:08You see, when you deal
20:09with somebody in class 8,
20:11I am willing to give even
20:12this much that you can
20:13discuss this with class 8.
20:14But then shouldn't there be
20:15a balanced approach that
20:17yes, this is what the
20:19judiciary has done, this
20:20is what the thing, but
20:21these are the problems
20:21which we face in the
20:22judiciary.
20:23I can still understand
20:24that.
20:25But you can't just, this
20:27is, you know, it seems to
20:30me, and I agree with the
20:31chief justice, that there's
20:32something much more
20:34sinister behind it.
20:35It's not just a pure
20:36article.
20:37These articles, you know
20:38how NCRT books are being
20:40changed.
20:41There is, our history is
20:43being changed.
20:43And now, institutional
20:45being maligned, the
20:46institution, and my, I
20:48feel, I may be wrong, but
20:50I feel that the judiciary
20:51is being maligned so that
20:52people lose faith in the
20:54judiciary.
20:55But do you realize what
20:57will happen if all people
20:58lose faith in the
20:59judiciary?
20:59It will lead to a state
21:01of anarchy.
21:03We, there are ills in the
21:05judiciary, I am not saying
21:06that, but those are to be
21:07discussed at levels or at, in
21:10fora, at a much higher
21:12level, not at the level of
21:14class seven or eight kids,
21:16when you are introducing
21:16them to judiciary, you
21:18shouldn't give them
21:19totally a negative.
21:20If you want to give a
21:21balanced approach, I have
21:22nothing against that also.
21:23Okay.
21:24But just as Gupta, when
21:25you say that there is
21:25some kind of sinister
21:27ploy, what can be this
21:29conspiracy and who's
21:30conspiring?
21:33No.
21:34No, the, you see, the
21:36conspiracy is to undermine
21:37the judiciary.
21:38Because today, the
21:40judiciary is standing as
21:41one of the last bastion of
21:43to fight for the rights
21:44of the people.
21:45Once people have no faith
21:47in the judiciary, then
21:47obviously they are going
21:48to say that, well, then
21:52it'll be like anybody can
21:54take up and get his
21:56dispute settled outside
21:57court.
21:57It is happening.
21:59These mob lynchings which
22:01happen, these people going
22:02all over the streets, asking
22:04people names, whether they
22:06belong to a particular
22:07religion, whether they belong
22:08to a different religion.
22:09What is this?
22:10This is all undermining the
22:12judiciary.
22:13Okay.
22:13But don't you think, sir,
22:14that such a sweeping
22:16crackdown risks sending a
22:19message that criticism of
22:20the judiciary, even in
22:21academic discussion, will be
22:23met with institutional force
22:26rather than engagement?
22:29I think if you see the last
22:31portion of the order, today's
22:32order, the order itself has
22:34three lines which says that
22:35we are not stifling criticism
22:38at any stage.
22:40And just see the last portion
22:42of the order itself today.
22:44It doesn't stifle criticism.
22:46And I myself have been very
22:49critical of the Supreme Court's
22:50judgments on various issues.
22:52I don't hold back words when
22:55I have to criticize certain
22:56judgments.
22:56I do it.
22:57But it can't, you don't paint
22:59the entire institution in
23:03black.
23:04I've been part and parcel of
23:06this institution.
23:07There are good persons, there
23:08are bad persons.
23:09But we just, that passage
23:11reads as if the judiciary is
23:13totally corruption written.
23:15It doesn't, it's not that.
23:16I'm not saying that there's no
23:17corruption in the judiciary.
23:18There is corruption.
23:19But is that something, a
23:21sweeping statement to be made
23:22in a class 8 book?
23:23And I think the action taken
23:25is a very well-measured
23:27action.
23:27I am sorry, I don't agree
23:29with you that this action is
23:30highly disproportionate.
23:32All right, Justice Gupta,
23:34appreciate your time.
23:35Thank you for joining us here
23:37on NewsTrack.
23:38That's all from me.
23:39We are putting out all those
23:40interviews on our website and
23:42also on the YouTube channel.
23:43Thanks so much for watching
23:44and I'll be seeing you tomorrow.
Comments