New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday gave a two-week time to the center to make the scene clearly on the petition that challenged the constitutional validity of section 124a from the Indian criminal code that sentenced seduction.
Bench of judge Your U Lalit and Ajay Rastogi delay hearing after General Tushar Mehta lawyer, appearing for the center, looking for time to submit a written statement.
The court also asked the Attorney General for Venugopal, who also issued a notice of the petition, to submit his response to this problem.
Six decades after upholding the constitutional validity in Section 124A IPC, the APEX court in May agreed to check whether the verdict needed to look back and whether criminal provisions had lost their relevance in current conditions.
The petition has been submitted by two journalists who challenge the validity of criminal provisions that stipulate a sentence to a life sentence.
The journalists, who face accusations of sense because they allegedly voiced political leaders and had to spend months in prison, begging that the law had surpassed its utility and it was misused by those in power to those who criticized them.
They argue that many countries, including the United Kingdom, who have introduced incitement law in India, has canceled criminal provisions related to incitement violations and requesting the court to re-examine the law in this context.
They alleged that the validity of Section 124a was enforced by the APEX court in 1962 because it was the need for hours to prevent public violence and public disorders that lacked war against the country.
“Section 124a, is, at that time the tools needed in crime control.
It is conceivable that if incitement has been conducted unconstitutional in 1962, there may be LACUNA in law, damage – public disorder and violence – not punished.
Contrary, in 2021, This is not a problem.
Alternative, less disturbing legislation is now available.
Nearly sixty years have seen the vast enactment of new laws that relate directly to safety and security, public disorders and terrorism.
The prominence of this is a violating the law of activities (prevention ) Law, Public Security Law and National Security Law.
Various parts of this action handle directly with open behaviors that are advertised to make violence and public disorders, “said the petition.
While upholding the validity of section 124a, a constitutional bench from the APEX court at Kedar Nath Singh V.
State of Bihar Case reads that part and argues that actions that involve intentions or tendencies to create interference, or incitement, or incitement for violence will be carried out by section 124a , Referring to misuse Section 124a, Petitioner journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha based in Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla based in Chhattisgarh – accused the number of decking cases registered throughout the country doubled from 35 in 2016 to 75 in 2018 but no chargesheet submitted on more than 70% of cases, and only four of the 43 cases where the trial had finished resulting in confidence.