[ad_1]
Law Commission On Sedition Law: The Law Commission has recommended retaining Section 124A of the IPC. Seeing the misuse of this law related to sedition, the Supreme Court had made it ineffective last year.
Now in the report submitted to the Central Government, the Law Commission has said that considering the ground reality of India, Section 124A should not be abolished. Along with this, the commission has recommended some measures to prevent misuse of the law.
‘Necessary to deal with violent insurgency’
The Law Commission, in its report to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, has said that in order to protect an elected government in a democracy from rampant and violent insurgency The existence of this law should be maintained. Almost all criminal laws in India date back to the British era. Therefore, it would not be right to simply dismiss Section 124A as a colonial legacy. It is true that this section was imposed on the freedom fighters during the British rule. But this does not mean that there is no need to use it now. Repeal of this law can affect the security and integrity of the country.
‘Use of more stringent law would be wrong’
Commission has pointed out that in the absence of Section 124A, UAPA or other stringent laws for speech or article inciting violence against the government May have to be prosecuted under, which would be wrong. In such a situation, the commission has recommended that instead of repealing section 124A, the focus should be on preventing its misuse.
‘FIR after preliminary inquiry’
The 22nd Law Commission, headed by former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, has suggested registering a sedition case only after preliminary inquiry . The Commission has said that officers of the rank of Inspector or above should conduct a preliminary inquiry into the complaint of sedition. If after this investigation, the allegations seem to be strong, then after the approval of the state government or the central government, a case should be registered. The commission has also recommended increasing the punishment for sedition from 3 years to 7 years.
The matter is pending in the Supreme Court
Section 124A has been challenged in the Supreme Court through more than 10 petitions. In these petitions, this law has been told against the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The petitioners have said that even in small cases, cases are being filed under this law. State governments across the country are using this law to repress their political opponents.
Order of the Supreme Court
On May 11 last year, the Supreme Court, while hearing the case, temporarily made section 124A of the IPC ineffective. The court had said that new cases should not be registered under this law and court proceedings should be stopped in the cases which are already pending. The court had allowed the central government to review the law. Also said that this interim arrangement will remain in force until the government reviews the law.
[ad_2]