Sedition, defamation charges cannot be invoked for criticism: SC

September 5, 2016

New Delhi, Sep 5: Sedition or defamation cases cannot be slapped on anyone criticising the government, the Supreme Court today said in a clear message.

supreme
"Someone making a statement to criticise the government does not invoke an offence under sedition or defamation law. We have made it clear that invoking of section 124(A) of IPC (sedition) requires certain guidelines to be followed as per the earlier judgement of the apex court," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit said while refraining from saying anything further on the issue.

The observation came as Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an NGO, said sedition was a serious offence and the law on it was being grossly misused for stifling dissent.

He cited the examples of sedition charges being slapped on agitators protesting against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, among others.

To this, the bench said "we don't have to explain the sedition law. It's already there in the five-judges constitution bench judgement in Kedar Nath Singh vs state of Bihar of 1962."

The court, while disposing of a petition filed by NGO Common Cause alleging misuse of the sedition law, refused to pass a direction on the plea that a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of states and the Directors General of Police.

"You have to file separate plea highlighting if any misuse of sedition law is there. In criminal jurisprudence, allegations and cognisance have to be case specific, otherwise it will go haywire. There can't be any generalisation," the bench said.

Bhushan said law has not been amended after the Kedar Nath Singh judgement by the apex court and a constable does not understand the judgement but what he understands is the section in the IPC.

"Constables don't need to understand. It is the magistrate who needs to understand and follow the guidelines as laid down by the apex court while invoking sedition charges," the apex court said.

The court was hearing a plea seeking the apex court's intervention to address the "misuse" of section 124 A of the IPC contending that such a charge was being framed with a view to "instill fear and scuttle dissent".

The NGO's plea said "there has been an increase in the number of cases of sedition against intellectuals, activists, students, with the latest being the sedition charge on Amnesty India for organising a debate on Kashmir".

"In this regard, a petition has been filed to address the misuse and misapplication of Section 124A (sedition law) by the Centre and various State Governments leading to routine persecution of students, journalists and intellectuals engaged in social activism. It is submitted that these charges are framed with a view to instill fear and to scuttle dissent".

Acting on a complaint by the ABVP on Saturday, Bengaluru police had slapped sedition charges against Amnesty International India after an event it had organised on allegations of human rights violations and denial of justice in Jammu and Kashmir.

Referring to a National Crime Records Bureau report, the plea said that 47 cases of sedition were filed in 2014 alone and 58 persons arrested in connection with these cases, but the government has managed only one conviction so far.

It cited a series of recent examples of activists being slapped with sedition charges, including Arundhati Roy in 2010 for alleged anti-India remarks at an event in Kashmir, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi in 2012 for allegedly insulting the country through his cartoons, doctor and human rights activist Binayak Sen, JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and DU professor S A R Geelani.

The plea sought a direction that either Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police be asked to give a report before registration of an FIR for the offence of sedition that the act has led to violence or there was an intent on the part of the accused to create public disorder.

It also sought a direction that the investigations and prosecutions be dropped in cases where such a reasoned order was not provided and the act in question involved peaceful expression or assembly.

The constitutional validity of section 124 A rests upon either an intention to create public disorder or incitement of violence, it had said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 4,2025

Mangaluru: Chaos erupted at Mangaluru International Airport (MIA) after IndiGo flight 6E 5150, bound for Mumbai, was repeatedly delayed and ultimately cancelled, leaving around 100 passengers stranded overnight. The incident highlights the ongoing country-wide operational disruptions affecting the airline, largely due to the implementation of new Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) norms for crew.

The flight was initially scheduled for 9:25 PM on Tuesday but was first postponed to 11:40 PM, then midnight, before being cancelled around 3:00 AM. Passengers expressed frustration over last-minute communication and the lack of clarity, with elderly and ailing travellers particularly affected. “Though the airline arranged food, there was no proper communication, leaving us confused,” said one family member.

An IndiGo executive at MIA cited the FDTL rules, designed to prevent pilot fatigue by limiting crew working hours, as the cause of the cancellation. While alternative arrangements, including hotel stays, were offered, about 100 passengers chose to remain at the airport, creating tension. A replacement flight was arranged but also faced delays due to the same constraints, finally departing for Mumbai around 1:45 PM on Wednesday. Passengers either flew, requested refunds, or postponed their travel.

The Mangaluru delay is part of a broader crisis for IndiGo. The airline has been forced to make “calibrated schedule adjustments”—a euphemism for widespread cancellations and delays—after stricter FDTL norms came into effect on November 1.

While an IndiGo spokesperson acknowledged unavoidable flight disruptions due to technology issues, operational requirements, and the updated crew rostering rules, the DGCA has intervened, summoning senior airline officials to explain the chaos and outline corrective measures.

The ripple effect has been felt across the country, with major hubs like Bengaluru and Mumbai reporting numerous cancellations. The Mangaluru incident underscores the systemic operational strain currently confronting India’s largest carrier, leaving passengers nationwide grappling with uncertainty and delays.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 2,2025

DKSsiddu.jpg

Bengaluru: 'Nati koli saaru' (country chicken curry) considered one of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s favourites along with steaming hot idlis was on the breakfast menu at Deputy CM D K Shivakumar’s residence on Tuesday, according to official sources.

The spread also included 'nati koli' fry, vada and pongal, among other items, they said.

In an apparent show of unity, Siddaramaiah visited Shivakumar’s residence for breakfast, just days after the two leaders shared a meal amid a simmering power tussle in the state Congress.

Siddaramaiah drove to the Deputy CM’s residence in Sadashivanagar, where he was received by Shivakumar and his brother D K Suresh, who is a former Congress MP.

Suresh and Kunigal MLA H D Ranganath, a relative of Shivakumar, joined them for breakfast, which featured a mix of vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes.

Speaking to reporters later, Siddaramaiah said Shivakumar had invited him during his visit to the CM’s residence for breakfast on Saturday.

Asked about the difference between the two meals, the chief minister said, "At his (Shivakumar’s) house it was non-veg, while at my house it was veg. He is a vegetarian, I am a non-vegetarian. I had not prepared non-veg. I told DK to get chicken from the village as you won’t get the original in Bengaluru."

Shivakumar said he had initially invited Siddaramaiah to his residence, but the CM had suggested visiting his place first and reciprocating later. "It was a vegetarian breakfast at the CM’s house on Saturday," he noted.

"Today, I invited him (the CM) to my house. He enjoyed the breakfast, which had his Mysuru taste," Shivakumar added. At this point, Siddaramaiah remarked that Shivakumar’s wife is also from Mysuru.

Saturday’s breakfast at Siddaramaiah’s official residence, held as part of efforts by the Congress high command to ease tensions in the leadership dispute between the two, reportedly included idlis and sambar, according to official sources.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 7,2025

Mangaluru, Dec 7: A 34-year-old fruit and vegetable trader in Mangaluru has reportedly lost ₹33.1 lakh after falling victim to an online investment scam run through a fake mobile app.

Police said the scam began in September, when the victim received a link on Facebook. Clicking it connected him to a WhatsApp number, where an unidentified person introduced a high-return investment scheme and instructed him to download an app.

To build trust, the fraudster asked him to invest ₹30,000 on September 24. The trader soon received ₹34,000 as “profit,” convincing him the scheme was genuine. Over the next two months, he transferred money in multiple instalments via Google Pay and IMPS to different scanner codes and bank accounts shared by the scammers. Between September 24 and December 3, he ended up sending a total of ₹33.1 lakh.

When he later requested a refund of his investment and promised returns, the scammers demanded additional payments, claiming he needed to pay a “service tax” first. Even after he paid a small amount, no money was returned, and the scammers continued pressuring him for more.

A case has been registered at the CEN Crime Police Station.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.