Monitoring Anti-hindu/india Activities Abroad

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/291843/May-get-away-once-more.html"]May get away once more[/url]

Despite law providing for severe punishment to any person inciting hatred and disaffection towards Government or one who advocates cession from India, noted author Arundhati Roy could have a way out. Legal experts hold her fiery speech advocating an independent Jammu and Kashmir to be part of “intellectual freedom”.



While it is for courts to examine whether there is anything in the speech promoting secession by violent means, what really is to be been seen is the real intent the speech sought to convey, they said.



Speaking to The Pioneer, noted jurist Rajeev Dhavan said, “The Supreme Court has said in its judgement in 1962 that a certain leeway has to be given while deciding cases of sedition. But what really determines a violation under IPC Section 124A (sedition) is the real intention behind the speech, failing which it would fall within mere criticism of the Government.”



Senior advocate KTS Tulsi said, “Based on what is said by Roy, it does not call for any criminal action. Our patriotism is not so fragile. In my opinion, it is said in the context of intellectual freedom where everybody has a right to speak and express freely.”



The 1962 Constitution Bench decision held, “The Section (124A) has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section.” Section 124A states: “Whoever brings or attempts to bring in hatred, contempt or excites disaffection towards Government shall be punished...”



Roy could face a serious charge though, that of advising abetting or inciting the commission of an unlawful activity, which includes cession of any part of India from the Union, provided under Section 13(1)(<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA). Experts, however, avoided commenting on whether her statements attracted criminal action under UAPA.