Skip to main content

Inciting People On Social Media Might Also Amount To Attempting To Wage War Against The Government

In Arvinder Singh @ Ghoga vs State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court was hearing an Application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by Singh, a resident of Pallian Khurd in Nawanshahr, who was arrested in May, 2016. He had been charged inter alia with the offence under Section 121 (waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

Singh had asserted that sharing of the alleged seditious/communally sensitive or hateful posts on social media does not disclose any ingredients to establish the offence under Section 121. He had further contended that the acts of receiving money from abroad or distributing Pamphlets or sending Booklets abroad meant to convey the objective of securing “purity” or “non-servility” of the ‘Sikh Panth’ cannot render him liable for offences under the UAPA as well.

The State, on the other hand, had contended that even collecting men, and not necessarily arms and ammunition, would amount to attempting to wage a war against the Government. It submitted that this would make an offence under Section 122 (collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India) of the Code, which Singh can be convicted of if the material so indicates.

Refusing to grant bail to an alleged member of terror group Babbar Khalsa International, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that inciting people on social media on directly accessible all over the World simultaneously, and not just in a limited crowded place might also amount to mounting an attempt at waging war against the government.

It can therefore, be safely held that the Petitioner by way of collecting ‘men’, with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India, would be liable under section 122 of the IPC, which is punishable at par with section 121-A of IPC itself, for which he is already facing trial. The punishment in such event can extend to imprisonment for life.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more