Sedition vs Fundamental Rights: Avoid overuse of judiciary!

The process of replacement of the archaic laws of British era has been initiated by the parliament. A committee of the parliament has been assigned the task of studying the three Bills, viz. to replace the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. The said Committee is to study the pros and cons of the proposed statutes and make its recommendations. The Home Minister while introducing the Bills has made it clear that the law on sedition has been suitably rehashed in order to prevent its misuse.

However, the self-proclaimed champions of human and fundamental rights could not wait till the submission of the report by the Experts Committee. Therefore, they have rushed to the apex court and expressed their grave concern for the possible misuse of the provision of sedition in the new penal law. The apex court, strangely though, has asked the government to make it stand clear on the offence of sedition. In ordinary course, the courts in our country would have a practice of dismissing such petitions as being premature or misconceived. But after all, the Supreme Court is the supreme judicial forum and therefore, one cannot find faults with it!

Then the question as to why some people are so much concerned with the provision of sedition law. A little thought on this issue will convince us that the fear lingers in the minds of those anti- national elements who are hell bent upon breaking the country by hook or by crook. For them, unity, sovereignty and integrity of the country do not matter. They have nefarious plans to overthrow the lawfully elected government of the day and still get away with little or no punishment. For this, what a better way could be there than to use the powers of Supreme Court!

The government has rightly taken the stand that the new law has been in the nascent stage and the power of judicial review of law vesting with the Supreme Court cannot be exercised at this stage. The power of judicial review is available to the apex court only after a law has been duly enacted.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that the die- hard elements who have least concern for democracy and sovereignty of the country are overusing the judicial apparatus to find the escape routes after committing heinous crimes. The higher courts alone can control such judicial adventurism by the vested interests.

ONE TO BE HANGED FOR RAPE AND MURDER

A man hailing from Haryana ‘s Kaithal district has been sentenced to death by a POCSO court on September 16 for the offences of rape and murder of a seven year old girl on October 8 last year.

The court of the additional district and sessions judge Gangadeep Kaur terming the case as “rarest of rare” opined that in view of the barbarity of offences committed by the convict , there is no reason to believe that he would be reformed and would not be a menace to the society.

JHARKHAND HC ON DOWRY HARASSMENT

The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court has in a recent judgement held that not providing medical treatment to a wife suffering from cancer by the husband for not getting additional dowry amounts to cruelty.

Justice Ambuj Nath upheld the conviction and sentence of one, Sanjay Kumar Rai under Section 498-A of the IPC in a case titled, Sanjay Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others.

MEDIATION ACT, 2023 COMES INTO FORCE

The Mediation Act, 2023 has come in to force with effect from September 15. The Act mandates for referring any civil or commercial dispute to Mediation before going to a court or tribunal.

The time limit of 180 days has been provided for completion of the mediation process. This limit can you extended for a further period of 180 days in appropriate situation.

IRRESPONSIBLE UTTERANCES, CRUELTY AGAINST SPOUSE

The Bombay High Court in an appeal against the Family Court ‘s judgement

dismissing the husband ‘s petition for divorce, has held that irresponsible and unsubstantiated utterances against a spouse is cruelty as per law.

Granting the prayer for divorce, the two- judge bench comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Sharmila U. Deshpande pooh-poohed wife ‘s allegation that her husband was calling her senseless and without brain. The bench observed that in vernacular (here, Marathi) it is common to use such language against a spouse at home. Without any context when such language is used, it is not to be taken seriously, the court added.