Show Para
Question Numbers: 46-50
T sedition cases occurred in 2017 and the "Pathalgari Movement" began. Adivasis who faced the corporate takeover of their land gave birth to a new form of resistance, beginning to formulate the statutory provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees tribal self-determination. Stone slabs were erected on the boundaries outside the village. This is followed by preliminary information reports(FIR) alleged that the police were "attacked with sticks and traditional weapons (alleged to tribal dispute)", but in addition, the FIR also stated that the leaders of the movement were "naive in the name of Scheduled Areas". Bhale are misleading people", and "erecting stone slabs by misinterpreting the Constitution". Due to these FIRs, people had to go to jail for months. The events in Khunti led to several charges in the legal system. And many accusations among those who implement itbrought forward A century and a half after it was first introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the colonial government, terms such as dubious, ambiguous and vague for the statutory term of sedition continue to rip it into disuse. Sedition is defined as 'discontent with, or bringing into 'disgust or contempt' with, the government. Also immediately It should be clear that the scope of these words is unlimited and infinitely separable. However, when the Sedition Act was challenged in 1962, India's Supreme Court upheld it, claiming it was "narrow. The court said that only those acts which had a "tendency to create public disturbance" happens, they are the only ones who come under the ambit of this clause. However, this spontaneous opinion of the judge had no effect on the remote application of the sedition statute. The text or original clause was almost suspect to begin with, with "tendency to create public disturbance". Second, as long as the clause existed in the form it did, the police could, and did, continue to use it to suppress protest and dissent. Courts could, and routinely did, deny bail to people in jail. The failure, thus, of every wing of government: to Parliament, to the legislature to allow a statutory condition to remain on the written statute books, to the Supreme Court, not to overturn it when the opportunity arose, to the states. to governments and the police, that it found ready tools for harassment, and extended to lower courts, which under this section Enables people to be kept in prison for long periods of time. Needless to say, "encounters" and "fake encounters" occur because adequate accountability structures are not in place. Without these structures, the police function effectively in impunity areas. In 2009, the then Andhra State High Court pronounced a historic decision, in which he was held accountable. Tried to make arrangements. Central to this provision was the requirement that deaths in encounters be investigated as in the case of murder. An FIR has to be lodged against the police officers responsible for the encounter, and to the extent that they did so in self-defence, they have to prove it. The High Court decision, however, was stayed by the Supreme Court, which a few years later on the same subject. Passed a series of dubious and unclear guidelines. Even this provision, however, was recently ignored in the Telangana encounter case where, acting on public interest litigation, the Supreme Court ordered all pending proceedings (including the Telangana High Court case) which followed the guidelines was doing) and called the inquiry a "committee" with a six-month reporting period for removal. handed over The events in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh show that the rule of law and the Constitution have failed to reach those who need it most and where it is most needed. And the root cause of this failure is the active complicity of the very administrators we most expect to uphold the law: evidently, Offense laws are enacted by Parliament, upheld by the courts, abused by the police, and (again) upheld by the courts.
T sedition cases occurred in 2017 and the "Pathalgari Movement" began. Adivasis who faced the corporate takeover of their land gave birth to a new form of resistance, beginning to formulate the statutory provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees tribal self-determination. Stone slabs were erected on the boundaries outside the village. This is followed by preliminary information reports(FIR) alleged that the police were "attacked with sticks and traditional weapons (alleged to tribal dispute)", but in addition, the FIR also stated that the leaders of the movement were "naive in the name of Scheduled Areas". Bhale are misleading people", and "erecting stone slabs by misinterpreting the Constitution". Due to these FIRs, people had to go to jail for months. The events in Khunti led to several charges in the legal system. And many accusations among those who implement itbrought forward A century and a half after it was first introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the colonial government, terms such as dubious, ambiguous and vague for the statutory term of sedition continue to rip it into disuse. Sedition is defined as 'discontent with, or bringing into 'disgust or contempt' with, the government. Also immediately It should be clear that the scope of these words is unlimited and infinitely separable. However, when the Sedition Act was challenged in 1962, India's Supreme Court upheld it, claiming it was "narrow. The court said that only those acts which had a "tendency to create public disturbance" happens, they are the only ones who come under the ambit of this clause. However, this spontaneous opinion of the judge had no effect on the remote application of the sedition statute. The text or original clause was almost suspect to begin with, with "tendency to create public disturbance". Second, as long as the clause existed in the form it did, the police could, and did, continue to use it to suppress protest and dissent. Courts could, and routinely did, deny bail to people in jail. The failure, thus, of every wing of government: to Parliament, to the legislature to allow a statutory condition to remain on the written statute books, to the Supreme Court, not to overturn it when the opportunity arose, to the states. to governments and the police, that it found ready tools for harassment, and extended to lower courts, which under this section Enables people to be kept in prison for long periods of time. Needless to say, "encounters" and "fake encounters" occur because adequate accountability structures are not in place. Without these structures, the police function effectively in impunity areas. In 2009, the then Andhra State High Court pronounced a historic decision, in which he was held accountable. Tried to make arrangements. Central to this provision was the requirement that deaths in encounters be investigated as in the case of murder. An FIR has to be lodged against the police officers responsible for the encounter, and to the extent that they did so in self-defence, they have to prove it. The High Court decision, however, was stayed by the Supreme Court, which a few years later on the same subject. Passed a series of dubious and unclear guidelines. Even this provision, however, was recently ignored in the Telangana encounter case where, acting on public interest litigation, the Supreme Court ordered all pending proceedings (including the Telangana High Court case) which followed the guidelines was doing) and called the inquiry a "committee" with a six-month reporting period for removal. handed over The events in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh show that the rule of law and the Constitution have failed to reach those who need it most and where it is most needed. And the root cause of this failure is the active complicity of the very administrators we most expect to uphold the law: evidently, Offense laws are enacted by Parliament, upheld by the courts, abused by the police, and (again) upheld by the courts.
© examsnet.com
Question : 49
Total: 100
Go to Question: