SEDITION: What it means and what it definitely doesn’t?

SEDITION: What it means and what it definitely doesn’t?

Amidst the debate over sedition turning hotter day by day, arouses a certain need for understanding the actual meaning and motive of this law.

124-A is one of the most debated topic today, and most of the people are completely blinded by a certain ideology which restricts their vision making sedition law partially visible to them. When other people of the society start looking at this law with different views and dimensions, the motive of the existing law is completely defeated.

Looking back at the history, article 124-A has its place in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since 1870. However, 3 explanations were added to it in 1898 amending this section.  This amendment was done with a view to change the monarch perspective of the law.

Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (known as the sedition law) is as follows:

“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 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.”

Ø  PROBLEMS FACED BY THE LAW

·         Misunderstanding the law.

·         Looking it as a law drafted by the Britishers (which is apparently true), but the motive has changed today.

·         Looking at law of sedition as a law of monarchy rulers.

·         Misuse of law by putting this charge unnecessarily, even when the said conditions are not fulfilled.

·         Giving self judgements without understanding the law.

Ø  WHAT IT DOES NOT MEAN?

·         We live in a democratic country where the one who attracts maximum votes of the people is said to be the representative of people. However, the minority votes cannot be ignored. The government has to be accepted by the country but that doesn’t leads to infringement of right to criticize the government.  Even if one carries an unfavourable opinion about something, it is not a sufficient ground to prove that the person carries enmity or disloyalty towards the government.

·         The gist of the offence is that the person addressed must be provoked or incited to disorder. Mere expression using abusive language, which neither was intended nor did provoke anyone, could not amount to the offence. This provision applies to publications, speeches, drama, poetry, novel etc. But if seditious writing is not published and remains with the author, it doesn’t constitute to the offence. (This is the reason why the law against defamation- section 499 of IPC is seen as a solution to the problem where disclosure or publication of defamatory words, signs etc. is essential.)

·         Suggesting changes in any government policy, working or procedure doesn’t amounts to sedition. A general criticism always has its place. Commenting in a strong manner with a view to improvement is not same as disloyalty towards the government.

Ø  WHAT IT DOES MEAN?

·         Anything spoken or written which carries the essence of hatred in itself for the government and which intends or would lead to violence or public disorder, would be seditious.

·         Criticism of government within reasonable limits is consistent with the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19). There is a difference between opposing something being aware about and being violent for the same. The law of sedition ensures that violence and public disorder is restricted. Also the feeling of ‘enmity’ is not promoted.  Expressing disapproval without provoking and promoting disaffection would not lead to committing the offence.

·         In case, where the people who are addressed by the words spoken or written could have been provoked with the feeling of contempt and hatred towards the government leading to violent actions, the offence is committed. The attempt to create hatred, whether successful or unsuccessful would amount to the offence. The circumstances, place and conditions are also to be considered.

Law against sedition is not defending the government but the whole society. Sedition is a crime against society as the government is the representation of majority of people who elected them. One must be aware of their rights and oppose everything which is wrongful.

Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2016

“Every accident is a notice that something is wrong with man, method or material”

Road accidents kills more people than total number killed in wars of the country. Nearly 137000 died in 2013 due to road accidents and nearly 400 deaths are reported daily because of the same reason. The country seeks a loss of 3% in the GDP due to these increased number of road accidents.

The Motor Vehicle (Amendments) Act, 2016 which was tabled by Shri Nitin Gadkari, Minister of Road Transport and Highway on 9^th August 2016 is pending in the Parliament as the monsoon session of LokSabha ended on 12^th August. The bill may be considered in the winter session. 68 of 233 sections of the act have been amended. The basic goal of this amended act is to bring down the number of deaths and injuries due to road accidents to half.

Following are the features of the MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

·         Upper Limit of Insurer’s liability: The maximum claim has been ceiled up to Rs. 10 Lakhs in case of death and Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of grievous hurt in road accidents. Under third part claim, the victim could not claim for more amount thanthis from the insurer.

·         Compulsory Insurance: A Motor Vehicle Accident fund is to be created consulting the states as per the act and to be managed by special authorities specified by the central government. This could be an insurance cover to all road users in India.

·         Good Samaritans to be protected: As per section 134A of the act, any person who in good faith without expecting any award voluntarily comes to rescue the person or provide medical or non medical assistance would not be liable to any civil or criminal offence if his action causes any injury or death to the person. Also, the personal information would be provided only after a specific procedure.

·         Lesser corruption/waiting time (e-governance) : There would be lesser chances of corruption and no waiting lines with the introduction of e-governance system. Computerisation of services like issuing licence, registration of vehicle, filling of forms, change in address etc would be provided.

·         Recalling Vehicles: If any vehicle is found to harm the driver, the environment or other driver or persons on road, such vehicle would be called off. The manufacturer would either have to compensate for the vehicle or replace the vehicle.

·         Cashless treatment in golden hour: Golden Hour here means, the hour just after the severe injury took place when the chance to save the life and give good medical care is the highest. The patient would not be charged anything for treatment during this time period.

·         Increase of compensation for death in Hit and Run cases: The compensation amount has increased to Rs. 25 Lakhs from Rs 2 Lakhs as per the central government.

·         Responsibilities of the states: The states must make transportation schemes which would take care of increasing road pressure, safety of road users, last mile connectivity, safety of bicycle riders etc.

·         Unauthorised use of vehicles by the juveniles: The parents/ guardians would be liable for the same and penalty would be imposed over them.

·         Tremendous increase in fines: Increase in the fine imposed is seen as the most debatable point. However, it would ensure compliance of the rules by the road users. The list of increased penalties are as follows:

Section		Old Provision / Penalty	New Proposed Provision / Minimum Penalties
177	General	Rs. 100	Rs. 500
177A	Rules of road regulation violation	Rs. 100	Rs. 500
178	Travel without ticket	Rs. 200	Rs. 500
179	Disobedience of orders of authorities	Rs. 500	Rs. 200
180	Unauthorized use of vehicles without licence	Rs. 1000	Rs. 5000
181	Driving without licence	Rs. 500	Rs. 5000
182	Driving despite disqualification	Rs. 500	Rs. 10,000
182 B	Oversize vehicles	New	Rs 5000 Rs 1000 for LMV
183	Over speeding	Rs. 400	Rs 2000 for Medium passenger vehicle
184	Dangerous driving penalty	Rs. 1000	Upto Rs. 5000
185	Drunken driving	Rs. 2000	Rs. 10,000
189	Speeding/Racing	Rs. 500	Rs. 5000
192 A	Vehicle without permit	Rs. 5000	Rs. 10,000
194	Overloading	Rs 2000 and Rs 1000 per extra tonne	Rs 20,000 and Rs 2000 per extra tonne
194 A	Overloading of passengers		Rs. 1000 per extra passenger
194 B	Seatbelts	Rs. 100	Rs. 1000
194 C	Overloading of two wheelers	Rs. 100	Rs 2000, Disqualification for 3 months for licence
194 D	Helmets	Rs.100	Rs 1000 Disqualification for 3 months for licence
194 E	Not providing way for emergency vehicle	New	Rs. 10,000
196	Driving Without Insurance	Rs. 1000	Rs. 2000
199	Offences by juvenile	New	Guardian / owner shall be deemed to be guilty. Rs 25,000 with 3 yrs imprisonment. For Juvenile to be tried under JJ Act. Registration of Motor Vehicle to be cancelled
206	Power of Officers to impound documents		Suspension of driving licenses u/s 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, 194E
210 B	Offences committed by enforcing authorities		Twice the penalty under the relevant section

Table source: www.pib.nic.in  – Press Information Bureau

Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right: SC

Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right: SC

Dakshita Garhwal

India is the world’s largest democracy. Fundamental rights play an important role in maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of India. Having so many disparities, right to protest (in a peaceful manner) or showing dissent or disagreement to something is a fundamental right secured by each citizen of India.

The legal maxim “Rex non potest peccare” or ‘the king can never do wrong’ ceases to have its relevance in a democracy. People have complete right to show dissatisfaction and defects in the system.

A writ petition was filed by migrants of Jammu and Kashmir where they putted up allegations on the state for infringing their rights secured under Article 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The facts stated that the petitioners wished to take a peaceful march to Delhi to raise their grievances.  However, they were brutally beaten up by the police when they reached Katra (J&K). The petitioners have prayed for criminal action against the faulty officers and a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for the severe injuries sustained.

The Bench comprising Justice R.K. Agarwal and A.K Sikri held that taking out peaceful protests to address grievances is a fundamental right. Article 19(1)(a) ensures freedom of speech and expressions, article 19(1)(b) provides right to peaceful assembly without arms and article 19(1)(c) ensures freedom to form unions. All of these rights come with a reasonable restriction but can be claimed in a democratic, peaceful and prescribed manner. Showing dissent in a legitimate manner is always permissible.

In the present case, an analysis of facts was done. It was observed that the first step was initiated by the petitioners who turned the peaceful protest to violent march by pelting stone at the police. On the other hand, the police exercised powers beyond limits as they continued their lathicharge even after overpowering them.  The court awarded compensation to the victims under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The first petitioner is awarded Rs. 2 lakhs and the other two petitioners are awarded with the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each which has to be paid to them within 2 months.

There is a lack of proper training amongst police personnel to handle adverse situations. The protesting mob turn out to be very ugly that the police are forced to take strict actions. Human rights’ activists claim that practicing one’s fundamental rights must not result in infringement of some other persons. In case of rebellious situations the police are responsible to take proper course of action and restore the sustainability of law and order. Also, it must be taken care that the degree of action is not more than required. Police often crosses the limit which creates a negative image amongst the people. Abuse of power by police may lead to threat to rule of law.
The UN Human Rights’ body has also told to India that the right to peaceful protest must not turn out to paralyse the society.

Maternity benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 : a welcoming move

Maternity benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 : a welcoming move

Dakshita Garhwal

Empowering women is the most effective development tool- Kofi Annan

Rajyasabha passes the maternity benefit amendment bill 2016, which increases the maternity leave for women from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. This is a great step towards gender equality as the labour courts reported nearly 900 cases between 2008 and 2012 against denial of maternity rights and benefits.

Labour Minister, Bandaru Dattatreya moved the bill for consideration and passage. Women and Child Development Minister, Meneka Gandhi highlighted the increasing number of nuclear families which puts the responsibility of child solely over mother and the need for proper breastfeeding.

Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi gave ex-post facto approval to the amendment of Maternity benefit act, 1961 on 10^th of August. India is now amongst the 42 countries of the world which provide maternity leave for more than 18 weeks. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) also recommends 14 weeks to be minimum standard maternity leave. 

The newly amended bill provides for following provisos:

-Increase in maternity leave from 12 weeks to 26 weeks in all establishments including private sector.

·        - The mother must be full paid for this absence from work to take care of the child.

·         -The act applies to all the establishments where 10 or more employees are working.

·         -Crèche facility to be compulsorily provided where there are 50 or more workers in an establishment.

·         -Provision for 12 weeks leave for commissioning and adopting mothers.

·         -Enabling provision for ‘work from home’ facility for mother. This provision is not mandatory.

The bill is a step towards curbing the declining rate of working women. Women on denial of maternity benefits leave their jobs rather than proceeding towards the courts. It is quite hard to strike a balance between the job and the child which often forces women to leave their jobs and career. This act would be benefiting around 1.8 million workforce of the country. Only 24% of the total paid workforce is represented by women in India. If gender equality sustains in the work field, we may experience 60% increase in GDP by 2025.
Usually, a middle- lower income developing country tends to increase jobs for women but the recent NSSO survey found a decline of 7% in India’s working female force in 2012.

Some big companies are already offering long maternity leaves. However, it is expected that the government doesn’t stops here and women in the informal sector are also looked upon as they are usually restrained from the light of justice and benefits.

The bill is welcoming move to cherish the right of motherhood and maternity. A healthy future generation and a mother’s career are secured.

The bill is now to be voted upon by the Loksabha which would be followed by President’s approval.

UDTA PUNJAB AND QUESTIONABLE ROLE OF CENSOR BOARD

UDTA PUNJAB AND QUESTIONABLE ROLE OF CENSOR BOARD

Dakshita Garhwal

The censor board was established by the British rulers in 1920’s. The main motive behind the creation of such an authority was blocking US which carried anti-colonial sentiments or Indian movies which would politically heat up the anti- colonialism.

‘Udta Punjab’ was suggested 13 cuts and given ‘A’ certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The producers of the film approached the Bombay HC against this. And fortunately for them, the film has to be cleared with a single cut and an ‘A’ certification.

Such kind of argument previously heated up for a movie called War and Peace by Pathwardhan which criticised India’s nuclear bomb. It was asked to make 21 cuts which raised remarkable questions.  

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution providing Freedom of speech and expression is dragged into high controversies as censor board plays the role of reasonable restrictions. Even the Indian Penal Code restricts free speech on certain reasonable grounds.

Film makers claim that they must be provided freedom to exhibit their creativity and censor board hurts their soul when something really relevant with respect to the movie is cut off. But, isn’t the censor board doing its job according to the set guidelines and Cinematography Act, 1952? India is a sensitive country where a single issue can catch up so much heat. And, subsequently lead to political quashes and much more. “Censor board should not act as moral guardian”, many stated. The definition of morality differs according to circumstances and the board is a balancing body.

The irony is that the major concern of board is censoring scenes of violence and sex. Movies are not the only platform where these get promoted. One can have easy access to porn by simply typing a three lettered word ‘sex’ where the censor board carries a long discussion for curbing a long kissing scene. Legalising child pornography is definitely not promotes but one needs to understand that the new generation is practising freedom of speech and expression in true sense.  

Striking a balance is an extreme need of hour. Censor board is definitely needed to monitor the release of films with questionable standards. However, on the other hand it is also necessary that the board does not grievously hurt the producers disturbing the true intent of the movie. Sometimes, the board directs the ends to the film makers, which is one of the examples of misrule and restricting creativity.

All that happened with the Udta Punjab case reasonably travelled through the right track. Censor board did its job. The filmmakers were unsatisfied. They approached court and everything got fairly in its right place.