Plea in Supreme Court seeks to stop event in Delhi calling for India to be declared Hindu Rashtra

Sedition: Central government seeks more time to file response to Section 124A challenge in Supreme Court

2 May 2022

Sedition: Central government seeks more time to file a response to Section 124A challenge in Supreme Court

The central government has applied to the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for filing a response to a plea claiming Section 124A of the Indian Criminal Code (IPC), which criminalizes hate speech.

The government told; the Supreme Court that the draft response was ready, but awaiting confirmation from the competent authorities. Last week, on April 27, the Bench, led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana (including Judges Slyakant and Himacoli), ordered the government to submit a response by April 30.

The bank also ordered; the case to be listed for final disposal on May 5, clarifying that; no postponement would be granted.  The court is hearing a number of petitions that challenge the constitutionality of Section 124A.

 When the Supreme Court in July 2021 issued a notice on this matter, it asked; the central government if a law needed 75 years after independence.  Before India attained independence, the British utilized that clause to silence Indian freedom leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, according to the Court. CJI Ramana is currently being abused;  when someone dislikes the; opinions of others and is not accountable on the part of the government.

“It challenged that it; a colonial law used by the United Kingdom to suppress freedom and to Mahatma Gandhi Bal Gangadhar Tilak. This law was 75 years of independence. Do you still need it? Our concerns are the abuse of the law and the lack of accountability of the government, “said CJI Ramana.

The challenge to; this provision comes after two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, charged in April last year;  with incitement to posts and comics published on social media platforms.

They urged the Supreme Court to challenge this; provision on the grounds that; they violated one’s right to freedom of speech guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (a), and  SG Vombatkere 1962 Kedarnath Singhv Supreme Court ruling in the Indian Union. It turns out that; the law criminalizes the expression, based on unconstitutionally vague definitions; such as “dissatisfaction with the government.” “This is an unreasonable limitation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed; by Article 19 (1) (a), which causes a constitutionally unacceptable” chilling effect “on speech.”

One of the Foundation’s intervention movements of media experts states that; the Sedition Act is a colonial order; designed to “shatter the independence movement. “The history of the legislation against sedition demonstrates; the British desire to assure total allegiance and cooperation of Indian subjects not only in action but also in mind. It’s worth noting, however, that; Indian courts have overwhelmingly opposed treating every disagreeable comment as ‘actionable,’ promoting the media’s cause “According to the plea,

Read more news and [email protected]advocatetanwar.com