| Originally posted by : T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate |
 |
Author very sorry to inform that this is not a forum to propagate your ideologies which may induce or encourage terrorism or a debate about a subject which is banned by our country. Please do not use this platform for your fanaticism. Please withdraw your this post by informing the LCI admin team |
 |
Dear Adv. T. Kalieselvan, it appears you have some misconception or perceiving something which does not actually exist in my post. You must have also read this https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Sri-lanka-should-respect-human-rights--53733.asp Most probably looks like a wild flight of imagination on your part, some biases and prejudices that makes you think that talking about human rights, justice or civil and political rights as something that "may induce or encourage terrorism". Sorry to inform that most of the terrorism is work of various intelligence agencies of various countries and not due to some healthy and reasonably discussion about human rights, political rights or justice for the any people.
Separation is a natural God given birth right. When a baby is born, it physically "separates" from mother. When husband and wife cannot live together, they separate. Similarly when people do not get justice using available avenues, they have every right to politically separate. It is no crime. When United Nations was created in 1945, there were only 51 members, now there are around 193 members. How the increase of countries happened? It happened because the people talked and discussed about separation and today we have more countries than we had in 1945. Political separation does not mean it has to be done by violence. It can be done peacefully via referendum. Referendum is part and parcel of democratic principles and common law on which the Constitution is based. It is also part and parcel of the Constitution. It can be ascertained by reading the second para of Objects and Reasons of 44th Constitutional Amendment.
It is also worth noting and reading the following judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts -
Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Misc. 35002-M of 2007, Punjab and Haryana High Court
State of Punjab Vs. Simranjit Singh Mann Special Leave to Appeal(Criminal) No. 15364 of 2008 of Supreme Court. The scanned copy of the judgements is available at https://akalidalamritsar.in/supreme-court-high-court-india-record-proceedings-khalistan-judgement/
Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1785
Brief Facts: The accused had raised the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad” outside a cinema hall just after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Held: The slogans raised by the accused had no impact on the public. Two individuals casually raising slogans could not be said to be exciting disaffection towards the government. Section 124A would not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
In Kedar Nath Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that a “citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.” Note the use of the “whatever” here.
So to summarize, the Supreme Court has stated that Section 124A cannot be interpreted literally. The two essential ingredients required to establish the crime of sedition under Section 124A are
(i) the acts complained of must be intended to have the “effect of subverting the Government” by violent means; and
(ii) the acts complained of must be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace/ law and order by resort to violence and must incite violence.
Lt. Col. Pratap Singh (Retd.) Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh Criminal Misc. 11926-M of 1991 decided on 18.12.1992, Punjab and Haryana High Court.
When two officers of the Punjab Education Department raised the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad, Raj Karega Khalsa,” they were convicted of ‘sedition'. But the Supreme Court set it aside (1995(3) SCC 214), saying the court should look at whether it had led to a consequence detrimental to the nation's unity and integrity.
Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2015, Bombay High Court, 2 judges
Medium: Online and Offline
Brief Facts: The case arose out of the arrest of Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist who was involved with the India Against Corruption movement. Trivedi was arrested in 2012 in Mumbai for sedition and insulting the National Emblems Act. The court considered the question of how it could intervene to prevent the misuse of section 124A.
Held: The cartoons were in the nature of political satire, and there was no allegation of incitement to violence, or tendency or intention to create public disorder. The Court issued guidelines to all police personnel in the form of preconditions for prosecutions under section 124A: Words, signs, or representations must bring the government into hatred or contempt, or must cause, or attempt to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the government. The words, signs or representation must also be an incitement to violence or must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public disorder. Words, signs or representations, just by virtue of being against politicians or public officials cannot be said to be against the government. They must show the public official as representative of the government. Disapproval or criticism of the government to bring about a change in government through lawful means does not amount to sedition. Obscenity or vulgarity by itself is not a factor to be taken into account while deciding if a word, sign or representation violates section 124A. In order to prosecute under section 124A, the government has to obtain a legal opinion in writing from the law officer of the district (the judgment does not specify who this is) and in the next two weeks, a legal opinion in writing from the public prosecutor of the state.
Constitution is a social contract. Like any contract, there is a clause for entry, there is bound to be a clause for exist. Where is the legal problem if people want exit from the political setup? No legal problem except political mischief, dishonesty and genocides. Part III of the Indian Constitution is an inspiration from Universal Declaration of Human Rights. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Preamble reflects what is embedded inside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set forth from Article 1 to 30. The preamble also says the following -
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Above clearly tells that if rule of law, justice is not done to protect human rights, people have human right to rebellion as a last resort. It is an inalienable part and parcel of Common Law.
| Originally posted by : SAINATH DEVALLA |
|
I strongly condemn the post of the author "DEMOCRATIC INDIAN".This is a legal forum represented by legal experts,who are here to assit the needy querists in their legal battles.We are not here to either talk about politics nor about the political senario in the neighbouring countries.There are other platforms for such things but not this forum.Hence the author is ordered to withdraw his post immediately or else action could be taken against him. |
|
Oh yes, is this the kind of legal replies you give to the needy which has no basis in law? Like given in the following thread https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Coolection-of-knife-is-prohibited-in-india-or-not-137620.asp Since your wrong answer was pointed by me in that thread, are you replying as after thought with malice, spite and vengefulness to get even for correcting you in that thread? If yes then what kind of justice you will be able to fight for when mind gets full of malice, spite and vengefulness?
| Originally posted by : SAINATH DEVALLA |
|
"https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Sikhs-have-fundamental-right-to-carry-swords-in-court-rooms-137680.asp"
So the author is in the habbit of posting provovcative articles and posts which are related to Religions,Castes and Communities.
The admin of LCI should take action against such posts. |
|
What to say and waste time replying to a post of a person that finds posting a judgement of Hon'ble High Court as "provocative"? How is this thread "provocative"? https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Sikhs-have-fundamental-right-to-carry-swords-in-court-rooms-137680.asp If this thread is "provocative" then everything in this world is provocative which does not suit his whims and fancies. Very difficult to help such a person.
