The sedition law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence?: Supreme Court

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, today equated the British-era sedition law to "a saw" used to cut a forest instead of a piece of wood. "If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124 A... People are scared." the bench said.

Describing Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on sedition as "colonial", the bench questioned the necessity of this law after 75 years of Independence. The law holds "enormous power" for misuse with no accountability for the executive and poses a serious threat to the functioning of institutions, the bench said.

"The sedition law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence?" the Chief Justice of India questioned. It was suggested by the Attorney General, KK Venugopal that the law be retained with "guidelines".

"We are not blaming any state or government, but look at how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used, how many unfortunate people have suffered and there is no accountability for this..." the bench said.

Also Read: It is shocking. We will issue notice: Supreme Court on Continued Use of Scrapped Section 66A of IT Act

According to the court, several petitions have been filed contesting the sedition law, and all cases will be heard together. The court will examine the validity of this law and has asked the Centre to respond to a former army officer's petition that says the law causes a "chilling effect" on speech and acts as an unreasonable restriction on free expression.

Prior to this, another bench of the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to reply to a petition filed by two journalists challenging the sedition law.

The petitioner, Major-General (Retd) SG Vombatkere, contended that sedition law is wholly unconstitutional and should be "unequivocally and unambiguously struck down". Chief Justice NV Ramana said, "The petitioner has almost sacrificed his life to the country. So it is not a motivated petition."

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog