Wednesday, April 29, 2020

The Right Empowers YOU to SPEECH , YOU MUST KNOW ( RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION)

Right to freedom of speech & expression is FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN OF INDIA  .
   Article 19 (1) A of INDIAN CONSTITUTION
  guarantees to all the citizens right to freedom of speech and expression. this right is most important right not because it not only assures the condition necessary for democracy but also for a civilized life. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society


WHAT IS Freedom of Speech & EXPRESSION  AS PER INDIAN CONSTITUTION ?


Freedom of speech enjoys special position as far India is concerned. The importance of freedom of expression and speech can be easily understand by the fact that preamble of constitution itself ensures to all citizens inter alia, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. The constitutional significance of the freedom of speech consists in the Preamble of Constitution and is transformed as fundamental and human right in Article 19(1) (a) as “freedom of speech and expression”. Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court has said that the words "freedom of speech and expression" must be broadly constructed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in writing or through audiovisual instrumentalists. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one's own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes the expression of one's idea through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gesture, signs, and the like.
This ALSO includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:
  • published articles, books or leaflets
  • television or radio broadcasting
  • works of art
  • the internet and social media
.
IS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS  ON RIGHT TO FREEDOM?
Article 19(2) in The Constitution Of India 
Grounds of Restrictions

It is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place some restrictions on this freedom for the maintenance of social order, because no freedom can be absolute or completely unrestricted. Accordingly, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State may make a law imposing “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression “in the interest of” the public on the following grounds: Clause (2) of Article 19 of Indian constitution contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed:-

1) Security of State: Security of state is of vital importance and a government must have power to impose restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. However the term “security” is very crucial one. The term "security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would undermine the security of State.

2) Friendly relations with foreign states
: In the present global world, a country has to maintain good and friendly relationship with other countries. Something which has potential to affect such relation ship should be checked by government. Keeping this thing in mind, this ground was added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardize the maintenance of good relations between India, and that state.

No similar provision is present in any other Constitution of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States, would not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. However it is interesting to note that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to Pakistan.

3) Public Order: Next restriction prescribed by constitution is to maintain public order. This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established."

Here it is pertinent to look into meaning of the word “Public order. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of accusing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order.

The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order.

4) Decency or morality: The way to express something or to say something should be decent one. It should not affect the morality of the society adversely. Our constitution has taken care of this view and inserted decency and morality as a ground. The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place.

5) Contempt of Court: In a democratic country Judiciary plays very important role. In such situation it becomes essential to respect such institution and its order. Thus, restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to the Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt.' But now, Indian contempt law was amended in 2006 to make “truth” a defence. However, even after such amendment a person can be punished for the statement unless they were made in public interest. Again in Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn. vs R.K.Jain, it was held by court that, “Truth based on the facts should be allowed as a valid defence if courts are asked to decide contempt proceedings relating to contempt proceeding relating to a speech or an editorial or article”. The qualification is that such defence should not cover-up to escape from the consequences of a deliberate effort to scandalize the court.

6) Defamation: Ones’ freedom, be it of any type, must not affect the reputation or status another person. A person is known by his reputation more than his wealth or any thing else. Constitution considers it as ground to put restriction on freedom of speech. Basically, a statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.

7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force.

8) Sovereignty and integrity of India- To maintain sovereignty and integrity of a state is prime duty of government. Taking into it into account, freedom of speech and expression can be restricted so as not to permit any one to challenge sovereignty or to permit any one to preach something which will result in threat to integrity of the country.

From above analysis, it is evident that Grounds contained in Article 19(2) show that they are all concerned with the national interest or in the interest of the society. The first set of grounds i.e. the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States and public order are all grounds referable to national interest, whereas, the second set of grounds i.e. decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence are all concerned with the interest of the society.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

KNOW THE EXACT LAW ON Upto 7 years in jail for attacking Covid-19 warriors (HEALTH WORKERS), govt brings in ordinance

Promulgation of an Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 in the light of the pandemic situation of COVID-19
During the current COVID-19 pandemic, there have been instances of the most critical service providers i.e. members of healthcare services being targeted and attacked by miscreants, thereby obstructing them from doing their duties.
In this context, the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 22nd April 2020 has approved promulgation of an Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to protect healthcare service personnel and property including their living/working premises against violence during epidemics. The President has given his assent for promulgation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance provides for making such acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences and for compensation for injury to healthcare service personnel or for causing damage or loss to the property in which healthcare service personnel may have.

 1) What is violence as per law?
Violence as defined in the Ordinance will include harassment and physical injury and damage to property

2)who are the health service personnel  as per law?
Healthcare service personnel include public and clinical healthcare service providers such as doctors, nurses, paramedical workers and community health workers; any other persons empowered under the Act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease or spread thereof; and any persons declared as such by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. 

3)what type of property includes in law?
The penal provisions can be invoked in instances of damage to property including a clinical establishment, any facility identified for quarantine and isolation of patients, mobile medical units and any other property in which the healthcare service personnel have direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

4)act is bailable or non bailable as per law?
The amendment makes acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences. 

5)Punishment as per law?
Commission or abetment of such acts of violence shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three months to five years, and with fine of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.  
In case of causing grievous hurt, imprisonment shall be for a term six months to seven years and with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.   In addition, the offender shall also be liable to pay compensation to the victim and twice the fair market value for damage of property.

6)who can investigate the matter?
Offences shall be investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector within a period of 30 days, and trial has to be completed in one year, unless extended by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing.

purpose of this law to prevent The health workforce  who are our frontline soldiers in battling the spread of Covid-19. they put their own lives at risk in order to ensure safety of others. They deserve our highest respect and encouragement at this moment rather than being harassed or being subjected to violence. It is hoped that this Ordinance will have the impact of infusing confidence in the community of healthcare service personnel so that they can continue to contribute to serving mankind through their noble professions in the extremely difficult circumstances being witnessed during the current Covid-19 outbreak.

Saturday, April 25, 2020

THE CASE THAT INDIA SHOULD KNOW 'The “Best Bakery” Case

The Best Bakery case, in which 14 people were killed on March 1, 2002 during the Gujarat carnage, had become one of the most high-profile cases of the violence that erupted across Gujarat after the Godhra train incident. Following is the chronology of events in the Best Bakery case:

March 1, 2002: Best Bakery in Vadodara is burnt down by a mob, killing 14 persons.


March 2, 2002: Main complainant Zaheera Sheikh files first information report naming the accused.

March 21, 2002: Zaheera appears before National Human Rights Commission and demands justice.


May 7, 2003: Zaheera's brother Nafitullah and sister Saira retract statements in fast track court in Vadodara, which first conducted the trial in Best Bakery case.

May 17, 2003: Zaheera turns hostile in the fast track court, saying she cannot identity the accused. On the same day, Zaheera's mother Sahrunissa and younger brother Naseebullah deny their statements given to police.

June 27, 2003: Additional sessions judge H U Mahida of Vadodara fast track court acquits all the 21 accused in the case who were named by Zaheera in her statements before police and NHRC.

July 7, 2003: Zaheera names BJP legislator Madhu Srivastava for intimidating her into turning hostile. She demands retrial outside Gujarat.

July 11, 2003: Zaheera gives statement on oath before NHRC in the presence of Teesta Setalvad, secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace, about how she was forced to retract her statements in the court. She also names those who threatened her and her family to retract her statement

August 7, 2003: Gujarat government challenges the fast track court's verdict acquitting the accused by filing an appeal in Gujarat high court.

September 29, 2003: Gujarat government challenges the fast track court's order in the high court with an amended appeal.

December 26, 2003: Gujarat high court dismisses appeal filed by Gujarat government challenging acquittal of accused by the fast track court.

March 12, 2004: Supreme Court admits Gujarat government's appeal against acquittal.

April 12, 2004: Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat order retrial of Best Bakery case outside Gujarat, in Maharashtra.

September 9, 2004: Nafitullah Sheikh, brother of Zaheera, records statement before Vadodara police on threats meted out to him.

September 22, 2004: Charges framed against 17 accused in Mumbai court by judge Abhay Thipsay. Four other accused were declared absconding.

October 4, 2004: Trial begins in the special court in Mumbai presided over by Judge Abhay Thipsay.

November 3, 2004: Another turnaround by Zaheera, says that her statement given in fast track court at Vadodara was correct.

January 1, 2005: Tehelka magazine stings Vadodara MLA Madhu Srivastava and his cousin Batthoo saying they paid her Rs 18 lakh to change her testimony.

January 10, 2005: SC directs Registrar General BM Gupta to conduct a probe into the basis of Zaheera’s statements and the affidavits filed by Setalvad in the apex court.

August 24, 2005: The SC committee submits its report, calling Zaheera a 'self-condemned liar' who had fallen to inducements to give inconsistent statements. It gives a clean chit to Setalvad.

February 24, 2006: A Mumbai sessions court convicts and gives life imprisonment to nine of the 17 accused facing trial. It also issues notices to Zaheera and her family for tendering false evidence.

February 2, 2008: I-T dept slaps Rs 38-lakh tax notice on Zahira Sheikh

July 9, 2012: Mumbai HC acquits 5 in the case, life term to 4 upheld