Indian police arrest 15 Indians for celebrating Pakistan’s Champions Trophy victory

[Baby Leone]

Indian police arrested 15 Muslims in the Madhya Pradesh state on sedition charges after they allegedly raised pro-Pakistan slogans following the country’s victory in the ICC Champions Trophy final.

The arrests were made in Burhanpur district against the persons accused of firing crackers, police said, adding the suspects will be produced in the court on Tuesday, Hindustan Times reported.

According to police inspector Sanjay Pathak, a local resident told them over the phone about the celebration in Pakistan’s favour after the team’s stunning 180-run defeat against the arch-rivals.

Defiant celebration in Srinagar

“Following the complaint, we investigated the matter and found that 15 people were involved in it,” Pathak said.

The officer added that the 15 people were booked under Section 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy ) and 124A (sedition) of Indian Penal Code.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/144041...lebrating-pakistans-champions-trophy-victory/

 

[Counterpunch]

I think we need to respect law of the land where we are living. If there is any such law that forbids such slogans then the guys should have been careful

 

[Baby Leone]

I think we need to respect law of the land where we are living. If there is any such law that forbids such slogans then the guys should have been careful

what about freedom of expression? when these people dont like indian cricket team than you cannot pressurize innocent people for everything from eating to cheering for fav team in sports?

when Football World cup happens all Liyari people in Karachi cheer for Brazil & Argentina and supports them with banners and all that means we should arrest them for that?

 

[ito]

The people got what they asked for...

 

[Counterpunch]

what about freedom of expression? when these people dont like indian cricket team than you cannot pressurize innocent people for everything from eating to cheering for fav team in sports?

If it is a law against it only then. Otherwise, I am all for freedom of expression and living

 

[Baby Leone]

The people got what they asked for...

yeah ISI involved

 

[HAIDER]

Actually they won millions in satta ,,,, that s the reason they were celebrating ..... big deal. These guys played all there money on Pakistan ... rate was 1 ka 12 on Pakistan and 1 ka 6 if India win... so imagine why they are so happy .

 

[ito]

yeah ISI involved

You seem not get it...

 

[maximuswarrior]

You seem not get it...

Insecure little people.

 

[Baby Leone]

You seem not get it...

got your point but saying what a patriotic Indian should say...

 

[ito]

Insecure little people.

My tiny friend...the point is not the cerebration but the intentions of those people...

 

[Baby Leone]

Insecure little people.

you are right and from the news we can see who are insecure and all pre and post match indians reaction shows who are idiots and uneducated lot

 

[salarsikander]

Proud to be one. Thanks

 

[Infinity]

India is not a Banana Republic..................
All this mess happens because Indian Police are not well verse with Indian Laws..........
SC of India on Sedation Law 124A.............

It is important to note that under the Indian law of sedition, the events at the public meeting, even if completely true, do not even come close to establishing an offence. In Kedar Nath Singh’s Case, 5 judges of the Supreme Court – a Constitution bench – made it clear that allegedly seditious speech and expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to ‘violence’, or ‘public disorder’. Subsequent cases have further clarified the meaning of this phrase. In Indra Das v. State of Assam and Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that only speech that amounts to “incitement to imminent lawless action” can be criminalised. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the famous 66A judgment, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between “advocacy” and “incitement”, stating that only the latter could be punished.

Therefore, advocating revolution, or advocating even violent overthrow of the State, does not amount to sedition, unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to ‘imminent’ violence. For instance, in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions for ‘sedition’, (124A, IPC) and ‘promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc.’, (153A, IPC), and acquitted persons who had shouted – “Khalistan zindabaad, Raj Karega Khalsa,” and, “Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Karan Da”, late evening on 31 October 1984, i.e. a few hours after Indira Gandhi’s assassination – outside a cinema in a market frequented by Hindus and Sikhs in Chandigarh.

 

[footmarks]

India is not a Banana Republic..................
All this mess happens because Indian Police are not well verse with Indian Laws..........
SC of India on Sedation Law 124A.............

It is important to note that under the Indian law of sedition, the events at the public meeting, even if completely true, do not even come close to establishing an offence. In Kedar Nath Singh’s Case, 5 judges of the Supreme Court – a Constitution bench – made it clear that allegedly seditious speech and expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to ‘violence’, or ‘public disorder’. Subsequent cases have further clarified the meaning of this phrase. In Indra Das v. State of Assam and Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that only speech that amounts to “incitement to imminent lawless action” can be criminalised. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the famous 66A judgment, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between “advocacy” and “incitement”, stating that only the latter could be punished.

Therefore, advocating revolution, or advocating even violent overthrow of the State, does not amount to sedition, unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to ‘imminent’ violence. For instance, in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions for ‘sedition’, (124A, IPC) and ‘promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc.’, (153A, IPC), and acquitted persons who had shouted – “Khalistan zindabaad, Raj Karega Khalsa,” and, “Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Karan Da”, late evening on 31 October 1984, i.e. a few hours after Indira Gandhi’s assassination – outside a cinema in a market frequented by Hindus and Sikhs in Chandigarh.

If you raise slogan to praise an enemy state, it is akin to "incitement to imminent lawless action" or at least "incitement to public disprder"by offending and fueling the hatred towards the enemy state among common people.

Point is, what is sedition and what is not in the eyes of court depends on how good the lawyer defending it is.