New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the presence of the Venugopal Secretary General Prosecutor to examine PIL services submitted by the General Pensioners who requested a new examination of the constitutionality of provisions below 2004 from five-judgment SC one decade upheld the section.
MAF Gen (Retd) SG Vombatere said the expression of criminalization of the law based on the definition of “displeasure of displeasure” which is non-constitutionalism is an unreasonable restriction in fundamental rights for free expression guaranteed based on article 19 (1) (a) and causing “cold constitutional effect “on speech.
A chairman of the Chief Justice and Ramana and Judge A Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked for Advisor to Vombatere P B Suresh to provide a copy of the pill to AG and post a fresh problem on Thursday.
The applicant said the constitutional bench was five judges from the 1962 SC assessment in the case of Kedar Nath which enforced the validity of the provisions given in the era when the APEX conservative court in interpreting ambitge fundamental rights.
He said fundamental rights, especially the right to freedom of speech and the right to life, was given a broad meaning in many of the next landmark assessment.
VombatKere, who supports agitation by agricultural unions on agricultural law, said the right to freedom of speech and expression gets wings with the emergence of social media that allows citizens to freely express their opinions and against the government.
SC has never had the opportunity, in the era of transparency and openness, to examine the constitutional validity of the 124A IPC section, which is now often used to silence differences of opinion, he said.
Vombatere also did not succeed in challenging Aadhaar’s validity (sending targets for financial subsidies and subsidies, benefits and services) targeted, 2016 forwarded as a bill of money by parliament.
“SC in the case of Kedar Nath upholds the validity of the stabbing provisions and decides that the existence of the State will be in danger if the government set by law is overthrown.
However, the provisions are revealed, only reading for that expression that intends or has a tendency to cause violence can be punished.
Apart from the reading, the sustainable work of the allegations of incitement to silence differences of opinion continues and has been taken Judicial notices.
This encourages SC to repeat the Kedar Nath.
Act in 2016 in the case of common causes, directing all authorities to carefully follow the DICTUM Kedarnath.
“” SC has, however, does not have the opportunity to reopen the constitutionality of the provisions stabbed since 1962.
March Age and the development of the law must be taken into account in handling such questions now, not limited by Kedar Nath ruled, “he added Kan that Nath’s dedicating reasoning must be understood in the context of the era when “reading fundamental rights is rather limiting”.
In 1962, SC Five Judges had upheld the constitutional validity of section 124a but rented by saying, “The explanation was added to the main body of the section to clarify that criticism of public steps or comment on government actions, no matter how strong the words, will be in Reasonable boundaries and will be consistent with fundamental rights freedom of speech and expression.
“” Only when words, written or pronounced, etc.
who have an evil tendency or intention to create public disorders or legal disorders and order that the law steps to prevent these activities For the benefit of public order.
When it is so interpreted, the part, in our opinion, attacks the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and public order interests, “said SC.
Two more petitions by Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh, both of them have been ordered based on section 124a because social media posts suspected of objection, also challenging the validity of the provisions and three judges has been entertained.
cut.