Law Commission is reviewing the Sedition Law, Government says in Parliament

New Delhi: On Tuesday, i.e. on 1st day of March, the Lok Sabha was informed by the Union Home Ministry that the Law Commission of India is reviewing the ‘Sedition law’ and also the Govt. has commented that Law Commission has conveyed to the effect that certain focus areas has been identified by it and further it has formed subgroups for deliberating on allegations of abuse and arbitrary use of said law.

As per contentions of Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary- The Minister of State for Home who stated in Lok Sabha, that the Law Commission of India has been requested by the Ministry of Law and Justice for studying the usage of provisions of Sedition Law (i.e. Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860).

And further he stated, while replying to the written question, that the Law Commission has intimated on 11th day of December, 2014 that they have identified certain focus areas and also formed subgroups for deliberating on such issues.

However, it is notable that the said response from the Government side has reached while there being a JNU row, where the major issue of concern is Sedition law and the JNUSU President- Kanhaiya Kumar, for his alleged act of raising ‘anti- India’ slogans.

Moreover, on the issue of Sedition Law, there has been a raging debate for the past few weeks, while there being a burning concern of JNU row. The JNUSU President- Kanhaiya Kumar was charged of Sedition act for his alleged act of raising anti- national slogans terming the execution of the Parliament attack convict- Afzal Guru, as ‘Judicial killing’.

In the development of this case, the honourable High Court of Delhi has earlier, on Monday has reserved the order on the bail plea which was preferred by the JNUSU President- Kanhaiya, and slammed the Delhi Police, when they accepted that there was no video evidence for suggesting that the said Kanhaiya has raised any anti- national slogans in the JNU campus.

Moreover, the Delhi Govt. has raised no oppose against his bail, rather supported it saying there was no evidence or proof against him.

Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan