Friday, June 9, 2023

Article 66A Judgement: The Best Analysis

Must Read

Covid And The Global Warming Fraud

Educated Indians fall for every fraud that comes out of the west. In the awe of the Colonials, everything...

COVID And The Economic Illiteracy Of The Educated Indians

The Indians who live in the Europe or North America retain their economic illiteracy all their lives in those...

The COVID Pandemic

1. Of the major countries at war in the WW II, the US and the UK lost the least...

Over at swarajyamag.com, Saideepak has a very good write up on the Supreme Court judgement of 24 Mrach 2015 on article 66A of IT act.

 

Of course the article 19(2) of Indian Constitution is itself unconstitutional as it restricts the Natural Right of Free Born Human Beings.

Article 19(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
1. Interests of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,” are vague and can never be threatened by speech.
2. “Friendly relations with foreign States,” how can the country take away a Natural right of its citizens to save relations with a foreign State? If those relations are so fragile, we better not have them.
3. “Public order,” this is the most evil ground. This effectively is the heckler’s veto, the license to the violent to shut down Free Speech. If a human being is not able to control himself upon hearing what he doesn’t like, it is the business of government to restrain him, instead of taking away the Natural Right of man to Free Speech.
4. “Decency or morality,” what is decency and morality? That which can not be defined, can not be the ground to ban Free Speech by State.
5.  “Defamation,” for defamation, the aggrieved person may approach the Courts under appropriate law, and that should not be a ground to ban the speech itself by State.
6. “Incitement to an offence,” this is a very wide term, and except open call to violence, any other speech must not be criminalised by State.
But the battle to get the 19(2) declared unconstitutional will be joined soon. For now, savour the Sai’s article here.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Latest News

Covid And The Global Warming Fraud

Educated Indians fall for every fraud that comes out of the west. In the awe of the Colonials, everything...
- Advertisement -

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -