Civil Liberties
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."