LOL or DIS!
A news splashed all around since March 3, 2021 is:
Supreme Court of India (Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul) Sees Dissent and not Sedition in What Farooq Abdullah said.
The same bench sees that the Petitioners (BTW: Indian Citizens) had nothing to do with the Issue. Really!
What did the Supreme court say:
“The expression of a view which is dissent from a decision taken by the Central Government itself cannot be said to be seditious. There is nothing in the statement (of Abdullah) which we find so offensive as to give a cause of action for a court to initiate proceedings.”
What did Abdullah say?
Abdullah, in his TV interview, said, “China has never accepted the nullification of Article 370 (which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir and was abrogated by Parliament on August 5 last year). They have said, till you restore Article 370, we won’t stop because now it has become an open issue. Inshallah, I wish that our people get help from their might and our Articles 370 and 35-A get restored.”
‘Get help from enemy (their might)’ in internal/ national matters is dissent. Really! To a common person, it actually sounds like treason.
As per US laws:
§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Why do I reproduce the above US law is to let those legal activists know in India who seek declaration of Section 124A unconstitutional because it is against the fundamental rights. USA has the best of the human freedom and fundamental rights in this world (Count the people seeking migration to USA everyday); and no one in USA says their law of treason, sedition and insurrection violate fundamental rights. To be loyal and affectionate to your country is the duty of every citizen. Fundamental Rights come after Fundamental Duty.
Sedition, as per Section 124A in The Indian Penal Code
124A. Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards,[***] the Government established by law in 1[India], [***] shall be punished with[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.]”
Is Abdullah’s speech not ‘exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection’?
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.
