3. UP court slapped sedition charges on finance minister Arun Jaitley for criticizing the Supreme Court's
decision striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for selection of judges
to the higher judiciary.
The civil judge of Mahoba in Jhansi district Ankit Goel has taken suo motu cognizance of Jaitley's
criticism of the verdict, has asked Jaitley to present before him on November 19,2015
The judge said that the BJP leader's blog 'Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected' prima
facie amounted to sedition under Section 124A.
He added that it also caused public mischief under Section 505 of Indian Penal Code and that under
Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code, the court was entitled to take cognizance of Jaitley's statements.
The Case
4. Section 124A says "whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the government established by law shall be punished under the section".
“Sedition”
5. The Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected and if the elected are
undermined, democracy itself would be in danger
“My Personal Opinion”
6. • Supreme Court order ruled against the involvement of the political
executive in the appointment of judges.
• Jaitley, while reacting to the Supreme Court judgment on National
Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), had said that Indian
democracy could not be a “tyranny of the unelected”.
• He had said that democracy would be in danger if the elected are
undermined.
7. Advocates
Mr.Tarun Agrawal,
Mr. Manindar Singh Gill,
Mr. Ravi Kant,
Mr. Nalin Kohli
VS
Mr. V.B. Singh,
Mr. Imran Ullah,
Mr. Akhilesh Singh,
[ For Arun Jaitley ] [ For State of U.P. ]
8. Judgement
The record reveals that the Judicial Magistrate took action and has proceeded to summon the applicant
under Sections 124 A and 505 of the Penal Code on the basis of an article written by the applicant and
posted on his Facebook page. The article is titled as "NJAC Judgement-An Alternative View". The
Magistrate has recorded that no citizen has a right to disrespect the three pillars of our democracy
namely, the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary and proceeded that an order of a Court can be
questioned only by following a procedure prescribed by law. The order then states that no person is
entitled to create or generate hatred or contempt against an elected Government established by law.
The Magistrate upon recording the above conclusions holds that the comments made by the applicant
undoubtedly spread hatred and contempt against a duly elected Government and accordingly, in his
opinion, the applicant prima facie appears to have committed offences under Section 124A and 505 I.P.C.
Referring to the provisions of Section190(1)(c), the Magistrate recorded that the above mentioned
section of the Criminal Procedure Code conferred upon him a power to take action and issued summons
to the applicant seeking his appearance before the Court on 19 November 2015.
9. Noted criminal lawyer Amarendra Saran said there was no ingredient of offence
in the statement made by the finance minister and he did not commit any crime.
"The order passed by the judge is without application of mind and it must be
recalled," he said.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said the judge had gone overboard in passing the
order. "Criticism of SC is not even contempt of court, then how can sedition
charges be slapped for criticizing an SC verdict?" he asked.
Criticisms On The Judgement
10. References
• The Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sedition-charge-on-finance-
minister-Arun-Jaitley-for-slamming-SCs-NJAC-ruling/articleshow/49488057.cms)
• The Laws (http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=305102393200)
• Indian Kanoon (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140926320/)
• Zee News (http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/sc%E2%80%99s-njac-ruling-sedition-charge-
against-arun-jaitley-for-tyranny-of-unelected-blog_1813197.html)
