Text Practice Mode


created Wednesday September 16, 11:11 by sachin bansod



254 words
252 completed
The law on granting sanction for prosecution imposes a duty on the government concerned to apply its mind to the facts of each case and render a decision based on its assessment whether, prime facie, a case has been made out. The process cannot be based on a uniform policy. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) regime's justification that it cleared the prosecution of former JNU students’ union leader Kanhaiya Kumar and others on charges of sedition and conspiracy because it adopts a policy of non-interference in judicial matters is completely unacceptable. Superior courts have repeatedly stressed that giving sanction is not a mechanical process, but requires application of mind. The government is required to decide whether there is enough material to conclude that the speech or slogans had a tendency to create public disorder or contained incitement to violence. The prior sanction norm is a vital procedural safeguard against frivolous prosecution. The sanction requirement has seen criticism only in corruption cases, as the power could be used to shield corrupt public servants. However, the sanction contemplated by Section 196 of the CrPC, for offences against the state in the Indian Penal Code, as well as conspiracy to commit them, is different. Such sanction is also needed for Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 295A (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings). The reason is that a police officer's understanding of the offence should be subject to the government's scrutiny so that these provisions are not unlawfully used against free speech.

saving score / loading statistics ...