three judges benchconsisting of the chief judge of India Nevada Ramana and Judges Surya Kant and Hema Kohli, said the petitioners had raised the argument that “if we grant the adjournment, how to protect interests of people who be already Reserved under Section 124A as well in future If this provision can be retained in Suspension for More time to take a review place. The Solicitor General is looking for some time to get instructions. Make a list of the matter tomorrow.”
“Mr. Mehta, we are making it great clear. you want To take instructions, we will give Time until tomorrow morning… Our specific query is on two cases. One is about outstanding issues and how The government will take care of future Issues under consideration of Law,” said Attorney General Tushar Mehta who Back for center.
Appearance of the first lawyer, Kapil Sibal for The petitioners objected to the center’s request and urged the court to “move forward.” with Command “:” It’s for The judiciary to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. We can’t wait for What they will do (legislature and executive).”
Earlier, Judge Surya Kant asked the Solicitor General, “Mr. Mehta, it will take two months, three months, whatever the time, no know In the end… until this is cleared up, why not… you, as the central governmentthrough your ministry issue a direction To the countries that remain matters in Stop until then.”
Mehta said, “I can discuss with The government. There could be guidelines.”
Justice Surya Kant said, “That’s what we say, you can issue a direction For state governments… we also Suppose there may be a serious crime tomorrow. There are certain pockets that are very sensitive to the nation concerned. Assuming something happened there, there are other penalty provisions you can be careful about of the situation. It’s not that law enforcement agencies will be powerless.”
She stated that she was “fully aware of The various Opinions’ that are expressed on subject, center, in An affidavit on Monday, said bench He decided to reconsider the provisions and reconsider them of Article 124a “urging it to adjourn the session.” on Petitions to challenge constitutional validity of The law until such a practice is implemented out “Before the appropriate forum.”
In the statement of the Ministry of The Home Office said Prime Minister Narendra Modi “periodically, in various Forums, he expressed his unambiguous views in favor of protection of Civil liberties and respect of Human rights, giving meaning to the freedoms cherished by the Constitution people of Country”.
Referring to Tuesday’s affidavit, Mehta told the court, “If your leadership councils can adjourn…that is the request we have.” made on A statement”.
Sibal objected, saying: “Every institution does its job. It is for The legislature to frame a new law if it so desires, it is for Your lords to decide whether it is constitutional or not. But just because the legislature has the intention of Going through a legal process that may take 6 months, 1 year, the members of the House of Lords cannot wait because we have defied the current ruling. If the verdict will be changedProbably also Be united. that it for them to decide how To change it, when to change it and how to change it. This is their plenary session power. But this cannot wait for the exercise of your lordship of Jurisdiction under the Constitution.”
“So I’m sorry to say that should not said. Because this is their privilege, their entitlement to frame a file new Law. They even have the right to say that bad Law. But that’s not the point. Today we are dealing with Law to be dealt with with under the constitution. Your lords will not wait to another jurisdiction to make a decision first before your lords decide. This is not what the constitution says… the legislative power to make laws, the executive to take decisions. that it for The judiciary to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. We can’t wait for What will they do. This is not work of This court. I therefore strongly object to this affidavit. we want go on with Subject.”
The ICC reminded Mehta that the court had issued a “lengthy” notice backapproximately 8-9 months ago “and he had also He argued that it is good Law and there is no reason To refer to the largest bench. With reference to the affidavit transmitted government decision To reconsider the ruling, CJI asked,how It will take a long time for reconsidering? “.
Mehta said the law was in proces for more More than 100 years ago, this science was taken as soon A notice has also been issued by the court. He said he asked him to reply on two sides – the question of reference to greater bench and position of The government. the question of Ref, he said, is in Written Submission in Which is said to have ruled in 1962 in Upholding constitutional validity of Judgment is good The law does not need a reference, while the affidavit has government Understood.
employment how Long said the exercise would take, “I might not be able to give Flour reply. The process has begun. That’s what I can say.”
CJI said, “What we feel is, when the state says something is checked, we want To do this, it seems that we should Not be unreasonable “and” as much as demand concernedLeaves us be seen how We will do a lot of time give, what should be done. This we will decide.”
Sibal said even if there was new By law, there are pending lawsuits to be resolved under the current law. Judge Surya Kant said the court would not rule on the matter, but was keeping it pending. Sibal said: Meanwhile, people They are caught on on a daily approach.” The ICC confirmed that the court would consider this concern.
Sibal Jawaharlal Nehru also said wanted To get rid of IPC . Section on discord. “we in The postThe era of the constitution. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said that this ruling is abhorrent and the sooner we get rid of it of Discord the better.
Mehta was quick to reply: “What Nehru couldn’t do, is current government he did. We are trying to do what Pandit Nehru could not do then.” Sibal disagreed: “You don’t. You supporting Law. You say it all goodMr. Mehta. “
Big advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appear for The petitioners, they referred to the Constitution bench Judgment in which he gave statements of The executive branch cannot speak for Parliament, therefore, the government’s affidavit cannot explain what Parliament may do with With respect to Section 124a. he said that in The issue of privacy as well as the issue of marital rape government He had the same position.
The International Criminal Court said the court should consider opinions of Both sides are gone on To refer to the Center’s statement on the views of the Prime Minister on the topic. “We will definitely take into account that they are doing a serious workout on This is amazing issue… we should It doesn’t seem unreasonable.”
Turning to the attorney general, he said “there are concerns” about the pending cases and future cases in Who may abuse judgment. He referred to the statement of Prosecutor K. K. Venugopal regarding imposing sedition on two lawmakers in Maharashtra for Chanting Hanuman Chalisa and asking how The government You will prevent these things.
Mehta replied this deposit of FIR in Such matters are conducted and investigated by the states, not the center. he said that in Issue of Abuse, there are constitutional remedies.
But the ICC said that the court cannot require every citizen to go to court and to be. in jail for months. even said government He talks about human rights and civil liberties.
Reassure the court that he will receive instructions from government on Inquiries, Mehta said “It would be really dangerous as an officer of The court may say from now on, do not apply a penal verdict. We do not know The facts, we don’t know gravity of What will happen.”
The bench pointing to out He was only talking about Article 124a and no other offense.
“This also “A criminal offense,” Mehta replied, adding, “I don’t think so in The history of This country, your House of Lords has issued any order in which the use of penal law is not permitted.”
Judge Kohli said that was why Justice Surya Kant “explained to you why you, as the center, do not refer to the states, because you yourselves said so. for countries to take call…that please, in In the meantime, because we apply our mind on That, do something that you don’t pressure under this ruling… So it’s not like it’s the court on He says it himself.”