"LIFE BEGINS HERE AGAIN "
SOMETHING SERIOUS IS HAPPENING IN INDIAN SOCIAL FABRIC
In this very charged atmosphere, it may be useful to keep in mind what a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Justices Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat) in the celebrated case of ‘Nazir Khan and others vs the State Of Delhi’ in its judgment delivered on 22 August 2003 [reported in 2003(8) SCC 461] had to say on sedition.
“124A. Sedition —Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1— The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2— Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”
After quoting Section 124A IPC (reproduced above), the Hon’ble Judges proceeded to opine as under: -
SOMETHING SERIOUS IS HAPPENING IN INDIAN SOCIAL FABRIC
In this very charged atmosphere, it may be useful to keep in mind what a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Justices Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat) in the celebrated case of ‘Nazir Khan and others vs the State Of Delhi’ in its judgment delivered on 22 August 2003 [reported in 2003(8) SCC 461] had to say on sedition.
“124A. Sedition —Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1— The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2— Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”
After quoting Section 124A IPC (reproduced above), the Hon’ble Judges proceeded to opine as under: -
“Section 124A deals with 'Sedition'. Sedition is a crime against society nearly allied to that of treason, and it frequently precedes treason by a short interval. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed, or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the Government and laws of the country. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of justice into contempt, and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. "Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create a public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm, and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder.”
IN THE RECENT CASE OF JNU SEDITION CHARGES AGAINST KANAHYA
It is now for Hon’ble Courts to decide on conduct or lack thereof in relation to recent events
IN THE RECENT CASE OF JNU SEDITION CHARGES AGAINST KANAHYA
It is now for Hon’ble Courts to decide on conduct or lack thereof in relation to recent events
