sedition act - section 124 a
The sedition law
Section 124A IPC states: “Whoever, by
- words, either spoken or written, or by signs,
- or by visible representation,
- or otherwise,
Punishment
- shall be punished with imprisonment for life,
- to which a fine may be added;
- or, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”
चैलेंज
Section 124A has been challenged in various courts in specific cases.
The validity of the provision itself was upheld / समर्थन by a Constitution Bench in 1962, in Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar.
इशू क्या था ?
That judgment went into the issue of whether the law on sedition is consistent with the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees each citizen’s freedom of speech and expression.
क्या कहा ?
The Supreme Court laid down that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government, by way of criticism or comment, as long as it does not “incite people to violence” against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.
In the current Mumbai case
Chudawala’s lawyer submitted that the slogan was not raised with the intent of inciting violence, nor had it led to any public disorder.
The Maharashtra circular
During his arguments, Hiremath also referred to preconditions laid down in a 2015 circular issued by the Maharashtra government to its police personnel before invoking sedition. Hiremath claimed that police did not adhere to these while slapping the sedition charge on Chudawala. This was, however, was not accepted by the court.
cartoonist Aseem Trivedi
- The 2015 circular came during the hearing of a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court, after cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was booked for sedition.
- Trivedi had been arrested in 2012 for cartoons during the anti-corruption protests by Anna Hazare, on charges including sedition as it was claimed that they defamed Parliament and the Constitution.
- The sedition charge was subsequently dropped by the police; a PIL was filed in 2015 on the alleged “arbitrary” application of the charge.
What the High Court said
The High Court in 2015 referred to the Kedarnath judgment and said there was a
- need to lay down parameters for the invocation of Section 124A.
- “Otherwise a situation would result in which an unrestricted recourse सहारा to Section 124A would result in a serious encroachment आक्रमण of guarantee of personal liberty conferred upon every citizen of a free society,” the court had said.
Apart from the Kedarnath judgment,
the High Court referred to five other judgments, including a
- Supreme Court judgment (Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab) regarding raising of slogans by three men after former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated.
- The SC then ruled that “casual raising of slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection by the government”.
- The court observed, “It is clear that the provisions of Section 124A of IPC cannot be invoked to penalise criticism of the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means.”.
The court, however, said it did not feel the need to dwell on the subject further as the state government at the time had proposed that it would issue guidelines in the form of a circular to all its police personnel, as submitted before the court by the then Advocate General.
The AG had said the circular would indicate the parameters to be followed for invocation of Section 124A.
Source :. Indian express
Comments
Post a Comment