Supreme Court orders Section 124A IPC to be kept in abeyance till the time Central Government reconsiders provision

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be in abeyance until the Union Government reconsiders the provision.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana Justices Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli directed that Section 124A be kept in back burner till the government’s exercises to review the Section 124A completely.

The bench also asked governments for not taking any actions or investigation in pending cases till the time Government does not finish the exercise of reviewing the Section 124A

The Bench said”It is clear that Central government agrees that rigours of Section 124A is not in tune with the current situation and it was intended for the time when country was under colonial law. Thus Centre may reconsider it…it will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re examination is over. We hope and expect Central government and States will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under 124 A IPC when it is being reconsidered by the Centre” 

The post Supreme Court orders Section 124A IPC to be kept in abeyance till the time Central Government reconsiders provision appeared first on India Legal.



from Top News of the Day – India Legal https://ift.tt/XZPQq5Y

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal proceedings against encroachment on land of Gram Sabha can be taken together under Section 67 of Revenue Code: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on September 23 said that criminal proceedings against encroachment on the land of Gram Sabha can be taken together under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Civil and Public Property Act. A Single Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava passed this order, while hearing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by one Srikant, seeking to quash the charge sheet dated May 14, 2015 as well as the cognizance order dated April 6, 2016 and also the entire proceedings of case under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1894, registered at Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur, pending before the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur. The records of the case indicate that the criminal proceedings were initiated, pursuant to an FIR dated March 26, 2015 lodged against the applicant, which was registered as case under Section 3/4 of PDPP ...
Read more

Touching private parts of minor, kissing on lips does not amount to offence under Section 177 of IPC: Bombay High Court

Image
The Bombay High Court has observed that touching private parts of a minor and kissing on lips do not amount to unnatural offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai made the remarks, while granting bail to an accused, after noting that the POCSO offences with which the accused was charged, were punishable with maximum imprisonment up to five years and the accused had been in custody for almost a year. It noted that the statement of the victim as well as the First Information Report prima facie indicated that the Applicant had touched the private parts of the victim and had kissed his lips. Section 377 defines unnatural offences as voluntarily having carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal and the punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to 10 years, noted the Bench. It added that the section clarifies that penetratio...
Read more

Supreme Court rejects petition against design of National Emblem installed atop Central Vista

Image
The Supreme Court rejected on Friday a petition filed against installing the State Emblem atop the Central Vista building, claiming that its design was in violation of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition Against Improper Use) Act, 2005. The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari said that they have seen the emblem and found it not violative of the law. The Court remarked that the impression the emblem gives depends on the mind of the person. It was a matter of perception, not violation. The Bench said in its order that the Court has gone through the emblem of which grievance is made, and can say that it is not in contravention with the Act. The petition was filed by Advocates Aldanish Rein and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, who believed that the lions portrayed in the emblem inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi appear ferocious and aggressive with open mouth and visible canines, in contrast with the State Emblem preserved in the Sarnath Museum, where the li...
Read more