oppn parties Sharad Pawar Is Wrong: Section 66A Of The IT Act Was As Draconian As Section 124A Of The IPC

Story Of The Day

Assessee Not Responsible For Ensuring TDS Is Paid To The Government: Delhi HC
OPINIONS : Strongly Expressed

January 22, 2025

People Are Talking About

Rohit Warns Sarfaraz, Police Use It To Warn Two-Wheeler Riders

News Snippets

  • Sikh extremists attacked a cinema hall in London that was playing Kangana Ranaut's controversial film 'Emergency'
  • A Delhi court directed the investigating agencies to senstize officers to collect nail clippings, fingernail scrappings or finger swab in order to get DNA profile as direct evidence of sexual attack is often not present and might result in an offender going scot free
  • Uniform Civil Code rules cleared by state cabinet, likely to be implemented in the next 10 days
  • Supreme Court reiterates that there is no point in arresting the accused after the chargesheet has been filed and the investigation is complete
  • Kolkata court sentences Sanjoy Roy, the sole accused in the R G Kar rape-murder case, to life term. West Bengal government and CBI to appeal in HC for the death penalty
  • Supreme Court stays criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi for his remarks against home minister Amit Shah in Jharkhand during the AICC plenary session
  • Government reviews import basket to align it with the policies of the Trump administration
  • NCLT orders liquidation of GoAir airlines
  • Archery - Indian archers bagged 2 silver in Nimes Archery tournament in France
  • Stocks make impressive gain on Monday - Sensex adds 454 points to 77073 and Nifty 141 points to 23344
  • D Gukesh draws with Fabiano Caruana in the Tata Steel chess tournament in the Netherlands
  • Women's U-19 T20 WC - In a stunning game, debutants Nigeria beat New Zealand by 2 runs
  • Rohit Sharma to play under Ajinkye Rahane in Mumbai's Ranji match against J&K
  • Virat Kohli to play in Delhi's last group Ranji trophy match against Saurashtra. This will be his first Ranji match in 12 years
  • The toll in the Rajouri mystery illness case rose to 17 even as the Centre sent a team to study the situation
Calling the case not 'rarest of rare', a court in Kolkata sentenced Sanjay Roy, the only accused in the R G Kar rape-murder case to life in prison until death
oppn parties
Sharad Pawar Is Wrong: Section 66A Of The IT Act Was As Draconian As Section 124A Of The IPC

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-04-29 10:15:30

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

Sharad Pawar has submitted an additional affidavit before the Koregaon Bhima inquiry commission suggesting that Section 124A of the IPC (commonly known as the sedition law) be repealed as part of legal reforms and Section 66A of the IT Act be reintroduced to ensure that law enforcing agencies can maintain law and order and prevent riots. While Pawar is correct in suggesting the repeal of Section 124A, he is wrong in demanding the reintroduction of Section 66A simply because that is like taking away an AK-47 from an assassin and handing him an AK-57 instead. Section 124A is, and Section 66A was, draconian and designed to curb dissent and free speech. They are full of poorly defined and ambiguous terms which are misused by the State to charge people with crimes against the state for just holding views that are not in consonance with the views of the ruling dispensation. Both are misused by the Centre and the states regardless of which political party is in power.

India has many draconian laws that are used to curb dissent and free speech. The Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Public Safety Act and the National Security Act, 1980 are all designed to do so. The real legal reform will be to amend these Acts to take away the arbitrary power they bestow on the executive to act against the citizen if he dissents against the government. The real legal reform will be to do away with multiple laws on the same subject and introduce a single law which has clearly defined terms and proper checks and balances to prevent the government from using it arbitrarily. Differing with the government is a democratic and constitutional right and as the Supreme Court had observed in Kedar Nath v. the State of Bihar, there exists a very thin line between hatred towards the Government and any legitimate political activity carried by the citizens. It is for this reason that any law that seeks to penalize citizens for holding a contrary view must be fair, not prone to misuse and must clearly define what constitutes an offence that is likely to start riots and/or disturb public peace. 

Other Stories You Make Like

Editorials

Turmoil In Mollywood

Turmoil In Mollywood

NDA 3.0: Coalition Dharma

NDA 3.0: Coalition Dharma

In Depth

Supreme Court Gets Strict On Child Pornography

Supreme Court Gets Strict On Child Pornography

Editor's Pick

Budapest Chess Olympiad: India Are World Team Champions

Budapest Chess Olympiad: India Are World Team Champions
© 2014 India Commentary. All rights reserved.