An outdated section with controversial past
- IPL spot-fixing case: Net widens, police watching 3 more players, other bookies
- IPL 2013: Imperious Brad Hodge powers Rajasthan Royals to qualifier
- Sonia Gandhi, PM Manmohan Singh slam BJP for disrupting Parliament, stalling bills
- IPL spot-fixing: 'Bookie' Vindoo was close to BCCI chief's son-in-law, say cops
- Jessica Lall case: Shayan Munshi to face perjury trial
There is a history behind the controversial law: It was part of Macaulay's Draft Penal Code of 1837, but was left out when the IPC was finally enacted in 1860 by the British. But, within 10 years, it was brought back since the British rulers of colonial India felt the need for a law to deal with dissent. Prominent among those charged under this section by the British were Mahatma Gandhi, who had once termed the law as a "prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen", and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
What does it say of our judicial system that sends Trivedi to police custody till September 16 on the basis of a complaint by a political worker who felt that Trivedi's cartoons were a threat to the country? While Gandhi and Tilak were leaders who were a threat to the British rule in India, Trivedi is just an "aam aadmi".
In 1962, while upholding Section 124A as being constitutional in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India had said: "A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder."
Our courts and governments — Central as well as states — would do well to remember the response of the Supreme Court of the US in 1989, when dealing with a case where a citizen had burnt the US flag to express his disenchantment with the government. The court ruled that burning the flag was a right granted to citizens by the constitution under the right to free speech. Numerous attempts by the US legislature to pass laws making flag-burning a criminal offence have failed — either due to lack of adequate support from the Senate or adverse pronouncements by the judiciary.
- Fixing probe now reaches Bollywood, son of Dara Singh held
- BCCI cashes Pune Warriors guarantee, 'disgusted' Sahara walks out of IPL
- Sreesanth spent Rs 1.95L on clothes, bought friend BlackBerry, paid in cash: Police
- Delhi firm with MoD as client is linked to Pak cyberattacks
- After Infosys, iGATE sacks Phaneesh Murthy for sexual misconduct
- 2 weeks after harassment, Haryana schoolgirls return, cops in tow