In a major relief to cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, a bench comprising of Mohit Shah, CJ and N.M. Jamdar, J has held that citizens have the right to say or write anything criticizing the government and its measures as far as it does not incite violence or create problems in law and order. The Court observed that after having seen the seven cartoons drawn by the cartoonist, they didn't find any element of wit or humour or sarcasm in them. It only displayed anger and disgust. But that does not mean that it attracted sedition charges,
The Court stated that it is clear that the provisions of Section 124A of IPC cannot be invoked to penalize criticism of the persons engaged in carrying on administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means. Every citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comments, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder. The section aims at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
The Court also accepted a set of guidelines, as pre-conditions to police for invoking sedition charges only if an act was an incitement to violence or disturbed pubic order. A legal opinion in writing, along with reasons, must also be submitted before any charge of sedition was to be applied in any case.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2015
Sanskar Marathe
versus
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 17 March 2015
Arrest of one Assem Trivedi on 8 September 2012 on
the basis of registration of First Information Report (`FIR') on
30 January 2012 alleging, inter alia, commission of offence of
sedition punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, led to filing of the present Public Interest Litigation
The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that Assem
2.
which is now registered as Criminal PIL.
Trivedi, who is a political cartoonist and social activist, through
his cartoons, not only defamed Parliament, the Constitution of
India and the Ashok Emblem but also tried to spread hatred and
disrespect against the Government and published the said
cartoons on `India Against Corruption" website, which not only
amounts to insult under the National Emblems Act but also
amounts to serious act of sedition. After the arrest of Assem
Trivedi on 9 September 2012, he was produced before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that
Assem Trivedi refused to make an application for bail till the
charges of sedition were dropped. Contending that publication
and/or posting such political cartoons on website can by no
stretch of imagination attract a serious charge of sedition and
that Assem Trivedi was languishing in jail on account of the
charge of sedition being included in the FIR, the petitioner, a
practicing advocate in this Court, moved the present PIL on 11
this Court passed the following adinterim order :
September 2012. The matter was mentioned for circulation and
"
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
by this adinterim order we direct that Mr.Assem
Trivedi be released on bail on executing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/.
Registry to communicate this order to the
Superintendent, Arthur Road Jail."
Accordingly, Mr. Assem Trivedi executed a personal
bond and was released on bail.
Thereafter, on the returnable date, leave was
granted to implead Mr. Assem Trivedi as respondent no.3.
3.
The third respondent claimed to have exercised his
fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression as a
cartoonist and claimed that his arrest and detention seriously
encroached upon the freedom guaranteed to every citizen by
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
4.
Affidavitinreply dated 12 October 2012 came to be
filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kherwadi Division,
Mumbai stating that the third respondent had displayed several
cartoons at a public meeting held on 27 November 2011 at the
MMRDA ground in Mumbai. The said meeting was held in
connection with the movement launched by Anna Hazare
against corruption in India. Apart from displaying the cartoons,
he had also uploaded some of his cartoons on a website called
"Cartoons against Corruption". Pursuant to the above display of
cartoons, several complaints came to be filed against Aseem
Trivedi.
On 10 January 2012, BandraKurla Complex Police
Station received a written complaint from Amit Katarnavare
asking the Police to register an FIR, inter alia, under Sections
124A, 153A, 120B, 167 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. When
the said complaints were forwarded to the Directorate of
Prosecutions, Maharashtra State for opinion, the Assistant
Director, Public Prosecution, Brihanmumbai vide his opinion
dated 10 January 2012 advised to invoke Section 124A of the
IPC and provisions of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of
Improper Use) Act, 2005. On 30 January 2012, BandraKurla
Complex Police Station registered an FIR vide CR No.14 of 2012
under Section 124A of IPC, under Section 2 of National Honour
Act and under Section 66A of Information Technology Act
based on statement of Amit Katarnavare, which was recorded
on 30 December 2011.
5.
In view of the above complaint, a non bailable
warrant came to be issued by Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 2 August 2012
against the third respondent. However, he could not be found
and when he learnt of issuance of a nonbailable warrant
against him, he surrendered before BandraKurla Complex
Police Station on 8 September 2012. On 9 September 2012 the
Metropolitan Magistrate granted police custody of the third
respondent for seven days. However, on 10 September 2012,
Police produced him before the Metropolitan Magistrate as he
had admitted to have drawn the cartoons. However, the third
respondent did not apply for bail. Thereafter, as aforesaid, this
Court passed an order dated 11 September 2012 directing the
Police to release the third respondent on bail on his executing
6.
personal bond.
Thereafter, BandraKurla Police obtained opinion of
the then Advocate General with regard to invocation of Section
124A of IPC to the facts of present case, amongst other queries.
Pursuant to the legal opinion of the then learned Advocate
General, it was decided to drop invocation of Section 124A of
IPC. The Police Department, however, took a view that as far as
application of Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National
Honour Act, 1971 and Section 66(A) of Information Technology
Act is concerned, the same will apply only to three out of seven
cartoons, which will be dealt with in accordance with law.
7.
In view of the above developments, the controversy
about invocation of Section 124A of IPC would not survive any
longer in the facts of the present case. However, learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that since the Police had
arbitrarily invoked the serious charge of sedition under Section
124A of IPC in a matter where the cartoonist was entitled to
exercise his fundamental right to the freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,
this Court may examine the legal position so that such
invocation is not resorted to, in future, in an arbitrary and
irresponsible manner. We, therefore, heard the learned counsel
for PIL petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State and
At the outset, we may reproduce Section 124A of
8.
learned counsel for third respondent Mr. Aseem Trivedi.
IPC for ready reference :
"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 dis
approbation 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 dis
approbation 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.
Classification of offence: PunishmentImprisonment
for life and fine, or imprisonment for 3 years and fine,
or fine Cognizable Non bailable Triable by Court of
Session Non compoundable."
Article 19(1)(a) conferring the fundamental right to
9.
freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(2) read as
under :
"19. (1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression..."
This guaranteed right is subject to the right of
the legislature to impose reasonable
restrictions, the ambit of which is indicated by
clause (2), which, in its amended form, reads
as follows :
"19 (2) Nothing in subclause (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 subclause in the
interests of 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."
In the leading case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State
of Bihar1, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined
the question “how far the offence, as defined in Section 124A of
IPC, is consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution”, and observed, inter alia, as
under :
......... It has not been questioned before us
that the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.
19(1)(a) of the freedom of speech and expression is
not an absolute right. It is common ground that the
right is subject to such reasonable restrictions as
would come within the purview of clause (2), which
comprises (a) security of the State, (b) friendly
relations with foreign States, (c) public order, (d)
decency or morality, etc., etc. With reference to the
constitutionality of s. 124A or s. 505 of the Indian
Penal Code, as to how far they are consistent with
the requirements of clause (2) of Art. 19 with
particular reference to security of the State and
public order, the section, it must be noted, penalises
any spoken or written words or signs or visible
representations, etc., which have the effect of
bringing, or which attempt to bring into hatred or
contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law. Now,
the expression "the Government established by
law" has to be distinguished from the persons
for the time being engaged in carrying on the
administration. "Government established by
law" is the visible symbol of the State. The very
existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the
Government established by law is subverted. Hence
the continued existence of the Government
established by law is an essential condition of the
"24.
1 AIR-1962-SC-955
stability of the State. That is why 'sedition', as the
offence in s. 124A has been characterised, comes
under Chapter VI relating to offences against the
State. Hence any acts within the meaning of s. 124A
which have the effect of subverting the Government
by bringing that Government into contempt or
hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be
within the penal statute because the feeling of
disloyalty to the Government established by law or
enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public
disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement
to violence. In other words, any written or spoken
words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of
subverting Government by violent means, which are
compendiously included in the term 'revolution',
have been made penal by the section in question.
But the section 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. Similarly, comments, however strongly
worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of
the Government, without exciting those feelings
which generate the inclination to cause public
disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.
In other words, disloyalty to Government established
by law is not the same thing as commenting in
strong terms upon the measures or acts of
Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the
condition of the people or to secure the cancellation
or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful
means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings
of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to
public disorder or the use of violence.
25. It has not been contended before us that if a
speech or a writing excites people to violence or have
the tendency to create public disorder, it would not
come within the definition of 'sedition'. What has
been contended is that a person who makes a very
strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a
writing directed to a very strong criticism of
measures of Government or acts of public officials,
might also come within the ambit of the penal
section. But, in our opinion, such words written or
spoke would be outside the scope of the section. In
this connection, it is pertinent to observe that the
security of the State, which depends upon the
maintenance of law and order is the very basic
consideration upon which legislation, with view to
punishing offences against the State, is undertaken.
Such a legislation has, on the one hand, fully to
protect and guarantee the freedom of speech and
expression, which is the sine quo non of a democratic
form of Government that our Constitution has
established. This Court, as the custodian and
guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens,
has the duty cast upon it of striking down any law
which unduly restricts the freedom of speech and
expression with which we are concerned in this case.
But the freedom has to be guarded against becoming
a licence for vilification and condemnation of the
Government established by law, in words, which
incite violence or have the tendency to create public
disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write
whatever he likes about the Government, or its
measures, by way of criticism or comment, so
long as he does not incite people to violence
against the Government established by law or
with the intention of creating public disorder.
The Court, has, therefore, the duty cast upon it of
drawing a clear line of demarcation between the
ambit of a citizen's fundamental right guaranteed
under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the
power of the legislature to impose reasonable
restrictions on that guaranteed right in the interest
of, inter alia, security of the State and public order.
26. ....... There can be no doubt that apart from
the provisions of clause (2) of Art. 19, Sections 124A
and 505 are clearly violative of Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. But then we have to see how far the
saving clause, namely, clause (2) of Art. 19 protects
the sections aforesaid. Now, as already pointed out,
in terms of the amended clause (2), quoted above,
the expression "in the interest of.... public order" are
words of great amplitude and are much more
comprehensive than the expression "for the
maintenance of", as observed by this Court in the
case of Virendra v. The State of Punjab : 1958SCR
308 at P
.317 : [(S) AIR1957SC896 at P
.899] . Any
law which is enacted in the interest of public order
may be saved from the vice of constitutional
invalidity. If, on the other hand, we were to hold that
even without any tendency to disorder or intention to
create disturbance of law and order, by the use of
words written or spoke which merely create
disaffection or feelings of enmity against the
Government, the offence of sedition is complete, then
such an interpretation of the sections would make
them unconstitutional in view of Art. 19(1)(a) read
with clause (2). It is well settled that if certain
provisions of law construed in one way would make
them consistent with the Constitution, and another
interpretation would render them unconstitutional,
the Court would lean in favour of the former
construction. The provisions of the sections read as a
whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering
penal only such activities as would be intended,
or have a tendency, to create disorder or
disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
As already pointed out, the explanations appended to
the main body of the section make it clear that
criticism of public measures or comment on
Government action, however strongly worded,
would be within reasonable limits and would be
consistent with the fundamental right of freedom
of speech and expression. It is only when the
words, written or spoken, etc. which have the
pernicious tendency or intention of creating
public disorder or disturbance of law and order
that the law steps in to prevent such activities in
the interest of public order. So construed, the
section, in our opinion, strikes the correct
balance between individual fundamental rights
and the interest of public order. "
(emphasis supplied)
11.
Thereafter, Supreme Court examined this question
again in Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2. On
the date of assassination of former Prime Minister Smt. Indira
Gandhi, considerable tension had been generated in the State of
Punjab. The appellants raised three slogans and they were
charged with the offences punishable under Sections 124A and
153B of IPC. In that context, the Supreme Court made the
following observations :
"A plain reading of the above Section would show
that its application would be attracted only when the
accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law in India,
by words either written or spoken or visible signs or
representations etc. Keeping in view the prosecution
evidence that the slogans as noticed above were raised
a couple of times only by the appellant and that
neither the slogans evoked a response from any other
person of the Sikh community or reaction from people
of other communities, we find it difficult to hold that
upon the raising of such casual slogans, a couple of
times without any other act whatsoever, the charge of
sedition can be founded. It is not the prosecution case
that the appellants were either leading a procession
or were otherwise raising the slogans with the
intention to incite people to create disorder or that
2 AIR-1995-SC-1785
the slogans in fact created any law and order
problem. It does not appear to us that the police
should have attached much significance to the casual
slogans raised by two appellants, a couple of times
and read too much into them. The prosecution has
admitted that no disturbance, whatsoever, was caused
by the raising of the slogans by the appellants and
that in spite of the fact that the appellants raised the
slogans a couple of times, the people, in general, were
unaffected and carried on with their normal
activities. The casual raising of the slogans, once or
twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be
aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or
disaffection towards the Government as established
by law in India. Section 124A IPC, would in the facts
and circumstances of the case have no application
whatsoever and would not be attracted to the facts
and circumstances of the case."
In Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi 3, the Supreme
12.
Court explained “sedition” as defined in section 124A IPC in the
following words:
“37. Section 124A deals with 'Sedition'. Sedition is a
crime against society nearly allied to that of treason,
and it frequently precedes treason by a short interval.
Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it
embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed, or
writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquility
of the State, and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to
subvert the Government and laws of the country. The
objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent
and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the
Government, and bring the administration of justice
into contempt; and the very tendency of sedition is to
incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. "Sedition
3 (2003) 8 SCC 461
13.
has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law
considers as sedition all those practices which have for
their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to
create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to
bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the
Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm,
and generally all endeavours to promote public
disorder.”
In S. Rangarajan Vs. P
. Jagjivan Ram and others4
the Supreme Court considered the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression in the context of censorship
under the Cinematograph Act. A Tamil film criticised the
Government policy of reservation in Government service. After
examining the judgments of the Supreme Court of USA, the
Apex Court observed as under:
“7. .... The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press." This Amendment is absolute in terms and it
contains no exception for the exercise of the right.
Heavy burden lies on the State to justify the
interference. The judicial decisions, however, limited
the scope of restriction which the State could impose
in any given circumstances. The danger rule was born
in Schenek v. United States, 249 U.S. 47. Justice
Holmes for a unanimous court, evolved the test of
"clear and present danger". He used the danger test to
determine where discussion ends and incitement or
attempt begins. The core of his position was that the
First Amendment protects only utterances that seeks
acceptance via the democratic process of discussion
and agreement. But "Words that may have all the
effect of force" calculated to achieve its goal by
4 (1989) 2 SCC 574
circumventing the democratic process are however,
not so protected.”
8.
The framework of our Constitution differs from
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Article
19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all
citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The freedom of expression means the right to express
one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing,
picture or in any other manner. It would thus include
the freedom of communication and the right to
propagate or publish opinion. The communication of
ideas could be made through any medium,
newspaper, magazine or movie. But this right is
subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds set out
under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The
reasonable limitations can be put in the interest of
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. The
Framers deemed it essential to permit imposition of
reasonable restrictions in the larger interests of the
community and country. They intended to strike a
proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and
the social interest specified under Article 19(2).
11. Here again we find the difference between the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article
19(1)(a) of our Constitution. The First Amendment
does not permit any prior restraint, since the
guaranty of free speech is in unqualified terms.
17. It will be thus seen that censorship is permitted
mainly on social interest specified under Article 19(2)
of the Constitution with emphasis on maintenance of
values and standards of society. Therefore, the
censorship by prior restraint must necessarily be
reasonable that could be saved by the well accepted
principles of judicial review.”
As regards the reasonableness of restriction on the ground of
social interests under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech
and expression, the Apex Court laid down the following
principles:
“45. The problem of defining the area of freedom of
expression when it appears to conflict with the
various social interests enumerated under Article
19(2) may briefly be touched upon here. There does
indeed have to be a compromise between the interest
of freedom of expression and social interests. But we
cannot simply balance the two interests ,as if they are
of equal weight. Our commitment to freedom of
expression demands that it cannot be suppressed
unless the situations created by allowing the freedom
are pressing and the community interest is
endangered. The anticipated danger should not be
remote, conjectural or far fetched. It should have
proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The
expression of thought should be intrinsically
dangerous to the public interests. In other words, the
expression should be inseparably locked up with the
action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in
a powder keg".
53. We end here as we began on this topic.
Freedom of expression which is legitimate and
constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom
by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental
freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably
restricted for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2)
and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of
necessity and not the quicksand of convenience of
expediency. Open criticism of Government policies
and operations is not a ground for restricting
expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of
others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to
democracy as to the person himself."
In Sakal Vs. Union of India5 the Supreme Court
14.
observed that Courts must be ever vigilant in guarding the most
precious of all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution i.e.
freedom of expression and speech. In Manubhai Patel Vs.
State of Gujarat and another6 the Gujarat High Court observed
that there can indeed be no real freedom unless thought is free
and unchecked, not free thought for those who agree with us
but freedom for the thought we hate. However, the constitution
does not permit the Legislature to make laws imposing
reasonable restrictions on such freedom on the grounds set out
in clause (2) of Article 19, including in the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State.
15.
On a perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear
that the provisions of section 124A of IPC cannot be invoked to
penalize criticism of the persons for the time being engaged in
carrying on administration or strong words used to express
disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to
their improvement or alteration by lawful means. Similarly,
comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation
of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings
which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts
of violence, would not be penal. A citizen has a right to say or
5 (1962)3-SCR-842
6 1972-Cri.L.J.-388
write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures,
by way of criticism or comments, so long as he does not incite
people to violence against the Government established by law or
with the intention of creating public disorder. The section aims
at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or
have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public
16.
peace by resort to violence.
Cartoons or caricatures are visual representations,
words or signs which are supposed to have an element of wit,
humour or sarcasm. Having seen the seven cartoons in question
drawn by the third respondent, it is difficult to find any element
of wit or humour or sarcasm. The cartoons displayed at a
meeting held on 27 November 2011 in Mumbai, as a part of
movement launched by Anna Hazare against corruption in
India, were full of anger and disgust against corruption
prevailing in the political system and had no element of wit or
humour or sarcasm. But for that reason, the freedom of speech
and expression available to the third respondent to express his
indignation against corruption in the political system in strong
terms or visual representations could not have been encroached
upon when there is no allegation of incitement to violence or
the tendency or the intention to create public disorder.
17.
We do not find it necessary to dwell on the subject
any further, as the learned Advocate General submitted that the
State Government in Home Department will issue the following
(1)
guidelines in the form of a Circular to all the Police personnel :
In view of the felt need to issue certain
guidelines to be followed by Police while invoking
Section 124A IPC, the following preconditions
must be kept in mind whilst applying the same:
The words, signs or representations must
(i)
bring the Government (Central or State) into
hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt
to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to
the Government and the words/signs/
representation must also be an incitement to
violence or must be intended or tend to
create public disorder or a reasonable
apprehension of public disorder;
(ii)
Words, signs or representations against
politicians or public servants by themselves
do not fall in this category unless the
words/signs/representations show them as
representative of the Government;
(iii) Comments expressing disapproval or
criticism of the Government with a view to
obtaining a change of government by lawful
seditious under Section 124A;
means without any of the above are not
seditious under Section 124A;
(iv) Obscenity or vulgarity by itself should not be
taken into account as a factor or
consideration for deciding whether a case
falls within the purview of Section 124A of
A legal opinion in writing which gives
(v)
sections of law;
IPC, for they are covered under other
reasons addressing the aforesaid must be
obtained from Law Officer of the District
followed within two weeks by a legal opinion
in writing from Public Prosecutor of the
State.
2.(i) All Unit Commanders are directed to follow
above instructions scrupulously.
(ii) It must also be kept in mind that the
instructions mentioned above are not
exhaustive and other relevant factors
depending from case to case may also be kept
in mind while applying Section 124A of the
IPC.
We clarify that this matter was heard only on the
18.
limited question of invocation of Section 124A of IPC and the
permissible lawful restriction on the freedom of speech and
expression in the interests of public order and not in any other
respect nor in respect of any other offence alleged to have been
committed by the third respondent.
The PIL accordingly stands disposed of.
20. We would like to place on record our appreciation
19.
for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Darius Khambata,
the then learned Advocate General, as well as Mr. Sunil
Manohar, learned Advocate General, Mr. Mihir Desai, learned
counsel for the third respondent and Mr. Marathe, the party in
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment