Keep sedition law intact in view of situation from Kashmir to Kerala: Law Commission chief
[ad_1]
He said that the investigation would be done within seven days of the occurrence of the incident and the preliminary investigation report would be submitted to the competent government authority for permission to register an FIR in this regard.
Amid demands for repeal of the sedition law, Law Commission Chairman Justice Rituraj Awasthi on Tuesday said the law was needed to preserve the “unity and integrity of India” in view of the current situation from Kashmir to Kerala and Punjab to the Northeast. should be retained. Justice Awasthi defended the commission’s recommendation to retain the law, saying adequate safeguards have been proposed to prevent its misuse. The sedition law is currently suspended following the Supreme Court guidelines issued in May last year. The chairman of the commission told PTI in an exclusive interview that special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act apply in different regions, but these laws do not cover the offense of sedition. , So there should be specific law on treason as well.
Justice Awasthi said, “While considering the application of sedition law, the commission observed that the prevailing situation from Kashmir to Kerala and from Punjab to the North East region is such that it is necessary to retain the sedition law to protect the unity and integrity of India.” He said that sedition law being a colonial legacy is not a valid ground to repeal it and various countries including the US, Canada, Australia and Germany have their own such laws. The 22nd Law Commission, headed by Justice Awasthi, in its report submitted to the government last month, has recommended continuation of section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), though the commission has added some safeguards to curb its misuse. There has also been talk of taking measures. The recommendation had triggered a political uproar, with several opposition parties alleging that it was an attempt to stifle dissent and expression against the ruling party ahead of the Lok Sabha elections next year.
Meanwhile, the government has said it will take an “informed and reasoned” decision on the Law Commission report after consulting all stakeholders and that the recommendations (of the commission) were “persuasive” but not binding. Here, the Congress has alleged that the government wants to make the sedition law more ‘strict’. Referring to the ‘procedural safeguards’ recommended by the commission, Justice Awasthi told PTI that the preliminary inquiry would be conducted by a police officer of the rank of Inspector or above. He said that the investigation would be done within seven days of the occurrence of the incident and the preliminary investigation report would be submitted to the competent government authority for permission to register an FIR in this regard. “Based on the preliminary report, if the competent government authority finds any concrete evidence regarding the offense of sedition, it can grant permission,” he said. Only after getting the permission, an FIR will be registered under section 124A of the IPC.
Former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Awasthi said, “We have also recommended that the central government may issue guidelines that can be followed in case of such incidents. Not only this, these guidelines will clarify the circumstances under which the concerned offense was committed.’ He said, we have held that the law of sedition is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Justice Awasthi said that terming sedition as a colonial legacy is ‘not a valid ground to strike it down’. “Countries like the US, Canada, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Norway and Malaysia also have sedition laws in some form or the other,” he said.
He said that as far as Britain is concerned, the law commission there had recommended repeal of the sedition law in 1977, but it could be repealed only in 2009, and that too when there were no laws to deal with such cases. Adequate provisions were made. Justice Awasthi said that in order to provide clarity to Section 124A, the Commission has suggested adding the words “with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder” in the relevant provision. It has been taken from the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘Kedarnath Singh’ case. The Kedarnath Singh verdict still stands and is a settled proposition of law, he said.
Disclaimer:IndiaTheNews has not edited this news. This news has been published from PTI-language feed.
[ad_2]
Source link
