Civil Liberties
KEEP THE SEDITION LAW IN ABEYANCE: SUPREME COURT RULES IN A HISTORIC ORDER 11 May 2022 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-urges-centre-states-to-refrain-from-registering-firs-invoking-section-124a-ipc-198810
"We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124 A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over".. The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. It has also been ruled that if any fresh case is registered appropriate parties are at liberty to approach courts for appropriate relief
On Sedition Law, Government's Big Climbdown In Supreme Court https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbhJnlJ_rZg May 9, 2022
Two days after firmly defending the country's colonial-era sedition law and asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the pleas challenging it, the government on Monday did an about-face, saying it has decided to review the legislation. In a new affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the centre said, "In the spirit of Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence) and the vision of PM Narendra Modi, the Government of India has decided to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of Section 124A, Sedition law."
Comment: SS: The sublime intention so very beautifully expressed is meant only to kill the current petition. For now, nothing more, nothing less."In view of this, the government “ respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble court may not invest time in examining the validity of Section 124A once again and be pleased to await the exercise of reconsideration to be undertaken by the Government of India before an appropriate forum where such reconsideration is constitutionally permitted"Ananthakrishnan G May 10, 2022 - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/will-reconsider-provisions-of-sedition-law-centre-tells-sc-7908127/
"To Buy Time": Trinamool's Mahua Moitra Shreds Centre's New Plan On Sedition Law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3C3C7DnP8w May 9, 2022 Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, one of the petitioners who called for the colonial-era sedition law to be scrapped, told NDTV today that the government's sudden move to decide on a review of the law is "just a ploy to buy time". The matter, she said, deserves to be referred to a seven-judge bench.
Is It Time To Scrap Sedition Law? Top Judge & Advocates Opine | News Today with Rajdeep Sardesai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgAF2pQgAl0 May 10, 2022
Former Judge Pradeep Nandrajog, Senior Advocate in Supreme Court Dushyant Dave, ASG Satya Pal Jain (https://youtu.be/FgAF2pQgAl0?t=496) and Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud over the brewing issue of scrapping of sedition law in India.
Does India Really Need Sedition Law? | Left, Right & Centre https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7TNEdmTqX4 May 8, 2022
Ahead of the crucial hearing in Supreme Court on the petitions challenging the Sedition law, the Centre has defended the colonial-era law saying there is no need to scrap it. Is sedition law essential or is it now archaic? Is going against the dominant narrative seditious and do sedition laws have a place in modern democracy?
India’s Sedition Law: Will the repressive law survive? May 4, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl7JIAt0g90
On May 5 2022, the Supreme Court of India will be hearing multiple pleas challenging the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code or sedition law. Will this contentious law finally be done away with? With the final hearing on the matter ready to take place tomorrow, that remains to be seen.
A Decade of Darkness in India: https://sedition.article-14.com/ an Article 14 database that mines multiple media, legal and police sources to record all sedition cases filed nationwide between January 2010 and February 2021.
More than 13,000 Indians, trapped by a colonial law, are suspended in a legal blackhole. More than 800 sedition cases have been filed against 13,000 Indians since 2010.
Assam: Govt Critics, Dissenters, Anti-CAA Activists: In Assam, Anti-BJP Actions Seen As Acts Of Sedition https://www.article-14.com/post/govt-critics-dissenters-anti-caa-activists-in-assam-anti-bjp-actions-seen-as-acts-of-sedition-6216f8cbeeec5 MAKEPEACE SITLHOU 24 Feb 2022 Part II: https://www.article-14.com/post/led-by-complaints-from-hindu-groups-police-violate-sc-rules-accuse-27-young-assamese-muslims-of-sedition-621837b0f2b3d The Assam police invoked section 124 A in 27 cases in 2018; 17 in 2019; and 12 in 2020.
A similar pattern of arrests was seen in Assam’s application of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, most recently in August 2021 when the state’s special director general of police (law and order) announced 16 arrests under the UAPA for Facebook posts “supporting” the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. These 16 accused were not charged under section 124 A. By October, 14 of the 16 had been granted bail by lower courts, reportedly for lack of evidence. In four of the seven cases of sedition examined by Article 14, the complainants had links to the BJP’s student organisation, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), or right wing groups like the Bajrang Dal.
https://countercurrents.org/2022/05/sedition-must-go/
May 11, 2022, was a historic day indeed for the Constitution of India and for “we the people”! In a landmark order, the Supreme Court put on hold Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, known as the sedition law. The 152-year-old colonial era law, said the order, should be kept in abeyance till the Central Government reconsiders the provision. The order was pronounced by a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition offence.
The three-page order of the Supreme Court states among other things, “This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused”.
by Cedrick Prakash
17/05/2022
read more
https://countercurrents.org/2022/05/historic-supreme-court-decision-on-sedition-law/
A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Suryakant and Justice Hima Kohli said that the rights of citizens should be protected. The Chief Justice asked how many petitioners are in jail. On this, Kapil Sibal said that 13,000 people are in jail. Chief Justice Ramana said, “We have given a lot of thought to this matter. In this case, we are giving orders. The Chief Justice, while reading out the order, said that it would not be appropriate to use the law of treason till reconsideration. We hope and believe that the Center and the States will refrain from filing any FIR under Section 124A of the IPC.
In fact, in the Supreme Court, the Center has decided to reconsider the law, so the hearing should be adjourned. “We can postpone the hearing, but we are concerned about the persistent misuse of the law, and the Attorney General has stated this,” the bench said. On this, the Solicitor General said that lawsuits are being filed by the states, in which the Center has no role. After this, the bench said, “Why don’t you tell the states not to file a case in this case till the central government revises the law.”
“We have drafted the directive to be issued to the state governments,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Center, told the court during a hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law. According to him, the state governments will have clear instructions that no FIR will be registered under the treason clause without the approval of the District Police Captain i.e. SP or a higher level official. The Solicitor General also told the court that the police officer would also give sufficient reasons to support the registration of an FIR under the provisions of treason. He said alternative measures were possible until the law was reconsidered.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the retired Major General stating that the provision and interpretation given in Section 124A (Treason) of the IPC is not clear. Its provisions violate the fundamental rights of the Constitution. All citizens have basic rights. This includes freedom of thought and expression in section 19 (1) (a). At the same time, section 19 (2) contains appropriate restrictions. But the provision of treason is against the provisions of the constitution.
In fact, in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that every citizen had the right to comment and criticize the workings of the government. Criticism has a definite scope and to criticize within that limit is not treason. However, the apex court had also clarified that there should be no attempt to disrupt public order or spread violence. Anyone who makes a statement or attempts to spread violence and disturb public order will be charged with treason.
12/05/2022
Read more
Personal Liberty and the Indian Courts PUCL Meeting Speakers: • Senior Advocate Mihir Desai • Advocate Gautam Bhatia https://www.facebook.com/peoples.union.for.civil.liberties/videos/2257352334437053
The one hour 45 mins discussion examines the recent three judgements relating to
•The denial of bail of Jyoti Jagtap by the Bombay High Court in the Bhima Koregaon Conspiracy case. (Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr.). In this case it is clear that there was no actual specific allegation that she was involved in violence or that any speech she gave incited violence.
• The stay on the Bombay High Court judgement of acquittal/discharge of Dr. GN Saibaba and others by the Supreme Court
• The denial of bail by the Delhi High Court of Umar Khalid in the Conspiracy case of the Delhi Riots of 2020. his membership to various WhatsApp groups is taken into account by the court. The gaps between his participation in WhatsApp groups and his participation in violence is filled by stipulation the HC makes. Court has to take innocuous statements and say that because there this is a larger conspiracy, these statements have a sinister meaning.
The meeting was reported in Livelaw: Conspiracy Allegation Used To Fill Gaps, Speeches Given A Criminal Colour : Gautam Bhatia On Umar Khalid, Jyoti Jagtap Bail Orders Padmakshi Sharma https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/conspiracy-allegation-used-to-fill-gaps-speeches-given-a-criminal-colour-gautam-bhatia-on-umar-khalid-jyoti-jagtap-bail-orders-212477
Adv Bhatia stated that substantive clauses of UAPA had to be given a narrow interpretation. Here, he gave an example of Justice Bhambhani's judgement in Asif Iqbal Tanha v State of NCT of Delhi.
- [[Procedure v/s Merit]] : Adv Bhatia commented on the Dr Saibaba case and stated that procedure had somehow less sanctity than a finding on merit. This has led to devaluation of procedure.The question is how do we, as legal writers, lawyers, citizens somehow bring back the sanctity of procedure", he said.
- Senior Advocate Mihir Desai also spoke about how the procedure is as important as the merit, as the law and procedure for stringent acts, especially when it comes to personal liberty have been designed to protect individual from the state. The process emphasises an independent procedure for a reason.
- Mihir Desai highlighted the issue of "frontal organisations". Jyoti Jagtap is said to have shouted slogans at Elgar Parishad as part of a play which dealt with issues such as demonetisation and Dalit rights. Jyoti was a part of Kabir Kala Manch. You can't throw names that this is a frontal organisation unless you come with a clear government notification. What is the basis of holding Kabir Kala Manch as a frontal organisation? Nothing. Just the other day the Prime Minister called 'Narmada Bachao Andolan' as an Urban Naxal Movement. Anything can be called this, which is okay for politicians but for courts to hold such organisations as frontal organisation is wrong."