Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)

Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 6 August, 1969

In the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India: AIR 1971 Bom. 56 , Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) delivering the judgment of the Special Bench emphasised that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 153A, intention to promote enmity or hatred apart from what appeared from the writing itself was not a necessary ingredient. It was enough to show that the language of the writing was of a nature calculated to promote feelings of enmity and hatred for, a person must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. The Special Bench of that court carefully went into the different passages of the book entitled "Gandhi Hatya animee" which had been proscribed by the Delhi Administration under Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and was of the view that although the language of the book was somewhat heavy and involved, it was not of a nature which could inflame feelings of hatred and enmity between Hindus and Muslims and no criminality could attach to the author under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
Bombay High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962

In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar: AIR 1962 SC 955 , the Supreme Court had to consider if Section 124A Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment for the offence of sedition (sic). It was urged before the court that, the provision was violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Their Lordships held that the true scope and content of Article 19(1)(a) can be determined only by reading it along with Clause (2) of the said Article which is in the nature of an exception to the general words used in Article 19(1)(a). Sinha, C. J. speaking for the court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 194 - B P Sinha - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.2 on the ground that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed since it does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. It is submitted that the petitioner after filing of present petition had approached the Supreme Court by way of an SLP and the SLP was disposed of by restraining State of Gujarat and W.P. (Crl..) No.801/2008 Page No.2 of 8 its authorities and officials from taking any step to arrest and detain the petitioner in connection with the proceedings arising out of the articles written by the petitioner. This petition was a gross misuse of law. It is further submitted that following were the statements made by the petitioner in the articles in reference to State of Gujarat and Gujaratis in the article :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next