tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post9126550057882771893..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Free speech, multiple proceedings and chilling effectsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-46003886651271593492008-02-06T22:45:00.000+05:302008-02-06T22:45:00.000+05:30Hi,My point was in view ,of Section 156 of the Cr....Hi,<BR/>My point was in view ,of Section 156 of the Cr. P. C. that provides for a complaint before a magistrate. Then there are sections in the Act that provide for jurisdiction.<BR/><BR/>When we are talking of amendment, we must not allow emotions alone to hold the fort. It is true that largely people of definite political groups are the one that file such cases; but does not limit the possibility of any other person filing a complaint. There should not be any restriction in law that inhibits a person wanting to take action, from taking it solely because of financial reason.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, it could be considered rule of procedure laid down by concerned high court provide for strict scrutiny of such complaints; and costs must be imposed for abuse of process wherever required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-87758590583842884952008-02-06T15:37:00.000+05:302008-02-06T15:37:00.000+05:30dear dilip and talha1. on talha's point - criminal...dear dilip and talha<BR/>1. on talha's point - criminal cases are of a different character to civil cases and i am not sure whether there is a 'right' to institute criminal proceedings on part of individuals (of course, i hesitate to say this, given the reluctance of the state to prosecute in Gujarat). but the criminal justice system's main priority must be protection of the rights of the accused - too many civil liberties have already been lost in the questionable 'victim's rights discourse'. victims rights should be restricted to civil process, and not enter criminal law (and again, i hesitate to make this point). but i lose my hesitation once i notice that the only people 'hurt' in speech crimes are extremist politicians and political groups. the so called 'poor people' perhaps couldnt care less.<BR/>2. dilip, i agree with you entirely. it is a matter of shame and calls for a rethinking of entire procedural and substantive laws that restrict speech and expression. right wing groups have long abused it. i was making a rather limited, though certainly not exclusive, argument of what a purposive interpretation of Article 19 may achieve.Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-77667433065890959382008-02-06T02:20:00.000+05:302008-02-06T02:20:00.000+05:30You can probably add Sania Mirza (insult to the na...You can probably add Sania Mirza (insult to the national flag I think) and Richard Gere to the list. MF Hussein does not want to come back to India and Sania has now decided not to play, some of it thanks to our justice system. I understand your point about the jurisdiction question but the harassment is not abated very much if people were to file petition after petition even in the town/city where the artist/celebrity resides (say every time Hussein paints a new canvas). So should all and sundry be allowed to file petitions claiming insult to some sentiment? Should this privilege not be limited to those who actually represent the people? Is it the job of every artist/celebrity (the same thing is happening to businesses as well) to act only in such manner as pleases every citizen of the country? Is this supposed to be the cost of name recognition?Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-26820513591273514102008-02-06T01:39:00.000+05:302008-02-06T01:39:00.000+05:30I had also thougt of the same remedy. But, on a de...I had also thougt of the same remedy. But, on a deeper evaluation, I am of the opinion that an absolute statutory bar could impede justice in the long run, and would increase difficulty for poor litigants who cannot afford to travel that much.<BR/><BR/>Thus, as a mid-way solution to this: It could be specifically provided that in all such cases, concerned magistrate would have to examine if it would amount to abuse of process to allow a litigant who can otherwise afford to file the case at the place where the defendant resides. (Such a discretion, I believe, is embedded in the judicial system; making it explicit will only make things easy).<BR/><BR/>Also, one must keep in mind that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. covers such specific situation. The defendant can approach the concerned high court for quashing the proceedings if s/he can establish that it amounts to abuse of process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com