Amidst the Opposition’s attack over the Supreme Court’s order to examine the constitutional validity of Section 124A, IPC, BJP leader Nalin Kohli has said that the SC sedition order must be viewed in the context of the overall positive suggestion of the government that it wishes to examine the matter which has been ‘duly accepted’ by court. He also added that so far Modi govt has removed over 1500 archaic and obsolete laws and 25000 compliances making citizens’ lives easier.
The BJP on Wednesday said the Supreme Court’s suggestion that sedition law must be examined goes in sync with the Narendra Modi government’s positive suggestion to remove over 1,500 laws and 25,000 compliances. Party spokesperson Nalin Kohli said the SC order must be viewed in the context of the overall positive suggestion by the government that it wishes to examine the matter which has been “duly accepted” by the court.
The application of sedition law has been put on hold by the Supreme Court. The BJP on Wednesday said the order must be viewed in context of government’s positive suggestions that it wishes to examine the matter
The Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday to stay the law in force for sedition “must be viewed in the context of the overall positive suggestion made by the government that it wishes to examine matters which have been duly accepted by the court”.
Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court’s move to put on hold the sedition law and said that the main message that came out from it was that controversial issues should be debated peacefully and discussed rationally, without disturbing law and order. He also added that the BJP has always advocated debate on any issue rather than slogan shouting or resorting to violence.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court put on hold, by giving six weeks’ time to govt, the applicability of Section 377 of IPC that criminalises homosexuality and makes it punishable up to 2 years. The apex court also said that no person should be ” persecuted “, however “straightforward” or “open” his/her views against homosexuality may be.”