Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

SEDITION

The offence of sedition is provided under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 :

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 [im-

prisonment 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.

· Adil under the section stated above cannot be held liable as for committing such an

offence it is essential to create incitement amonst the public(insert footnote) which adil

neither committed nor did he had intentions to do so. Being unsatisfied by the way his

community was being treated or the problems which they faced , the applleant excercised

his right to freedom of speech and expression ( provided to each and every individual

under both ICCPR and UDHR ) through his blog and voiced his opinions on social topics

of the country he was residing in, which does not constitutes sedition.

In this context , Article 19 of ICCPR (International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights) and

UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are set out below :

Article 19 of ICCPR states :

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to

seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,

in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Likewise Article 19 of UDHR also states :

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold

opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any

media and regardless of frontiers.

· The applleant received numerous amount of threats after publishing the blog and felt an

unsafe enviroment around him which also infringed his right guaranted under Art. 21 of

the constitution of Abibi which is applicable to every person in the country.

In this context , Art. 21 of the constitution is set out below :

Protection of life and personal liberty : No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty

except according to procedure established by law.

The right to live is not mere a physical right but includes within its ambit right to live with

human dignity (maneka) , right to reputation (kiran bedi) and so forth which were moreover

infringed in this applleant's case.

SUBPOINTS

DID APPLLEANT CREATE INCITEMENT TO VOILENCE AMONGST THE PUBLIC

THROUGH HIS BLOG :

In reference to the case of Shreya Singal v. Union Of India , the Supreme cort clearly drew

distinction between "Avocacy" and "incitement", in which only incitement can be punished. In

the present case, the applleant merely wrote a blog without any intention to create disturbance in

the country. Neither did he incite the public in any manner nor his actions were such as to

indicate that he wanted to create incitement amongst the public, which is moreover evident in his
testimony that his motive was just to make his community aware about their rights and nowhere

did he manipulate anything or anyone. He nowhere in his blog mentioned or targeted a particular

community and wrote against them.

APPLLEANT'S INTENTION TO COMMIT SUCH AN ACT

· As stated in the statement of facts, it clearly indicates that what the applleant had written

was his mere opinion on real time stories and he didn’t have any intention to provoke

people to perform such voilence.

· Adil in his testimony clearly stated the main reason behind writing this blog was to draw

the attention of the government towards the issue that he portrayed in his blog and to make

people of Abibi aware about their fundamental rights which are given by the Constitution

of Abibi.

· The moot proposition in its 7th point stated that the site created by Adil titled “My Rights,

My Voice”. The title in itself clearly indicates his active participation towards the

protection of rights.

· Earlier he was writing about the rights of women and child labors and after that now he

wrote for muslim community. So, this clearly shows he didn’t have any intention to

commit the offense of sedition.

· Since it is clearly stated in the moot proposition that Adil never received so much traffic

on his earlier written blogs, it is sufficient to prove that he didn’t have any knowledge that

blog in question will go viral and moreover shows that there was no mes rea to perform
such an act.

· The only intention that the applleant had behind writing this blog was to highlight or point

out the current scenerio of what is happening in the country and make people of Abibi

aware about their rights.

WAS CONTENT OF THE BLOG SEDITIOUS

· All the cases which the applleant mentioned in his blog were real time stories which in

itself shows that he did not manipulate or misrepresent any fact to form anything

seditious which would incite people against the govt.

· The word ‘Secular’ is mentioned in Abibi's constitution which means one that protects all

religions equally. The applleant aimed for equality in the country and demanded justice for

his community which according to him was lacking and so in the blog he for the purpose

of highlighting few words, altered the preamble of the constitution to show that these

fundamental rights which are moreover the basic structures of Abibi's constitution are not

being protected and freely exercised by the people.

· The level of incitement that was created amongst the public was never expected by the

applleant and would have never received traffic if the news channels and other media

platforms would not have kept the blog in the spotlight and make it viral. If the govt. had

taken proper measures and took appropriate steps then these riots and mass level

destruction could have never occurred and thus, the applleant can not be made liable under

124A of IPC.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen