Skip to main content

“Punishment for Being a Member of Unlawful Associations”- By Yashika Soni

“Punishment for Being a Member of Unlawful Associations”- By Yashika Soni

The Union Government has allegedly chosen to challenge the choice by the Supreme Court in Arup Bhuyan versus State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No (s) 889 of 2007) on the premise that the police can't hang tight for individuals from a banned association to perpetrate a terror act prior to arresting them. The court's decision accurately expresses that individuals from a banned association can't be treated as criminals except if they really resort to violence, prompt individuals to violence, or make public problem or unsettling influence of public harmony by violence. The "guilty by association" doctrine was disproved. It was suggested that Section 3 (5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cannot be interpreted literally since it would violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. TADA must be interpreted in light of the Indian Constitution's guarantees of fundamental rights. This was explained in detail in Sri Indra Das vs State of Assam and in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar. The federal government is reportedly petitioning the Supreme Court for a larger bench to overturn the two-judge bench's decision. When there is a large body of national and international case law to back up the initial ruling, which is appropriately designed to handle any true national security issues, this is plainly vexatious. In their decision, Jus. Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra mention various examples. These, as well as other important decisions, are summarised here. In the case of State of Kerala vs Raneef, The United States (US) Supreme Court's ruling in Elfbrandt vs Russel was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was determined that joining a group but not engaging in its unlawful actions does not constitute a threat or a crime. If it did, it would violate the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association. Furthermore, in Clarence Bradenburd vs. State of Ohio, the US Supreme Court stated that even "advocacy or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence as a means of achieving political or industrial reform, or publishing or circulating such advocacy or displaying any book or paper containing such advocacy, or justifying the commission of violent acts with the intent to exemplify, spread, or advocate the propriety of criminal syndicalism doctrines, Only if these activities provoke impending lawless action will they be considered criminal.

Against Communist Party

This question has been particularly relevant in the context of the Communist Party in the United States. The Indian Supreme Court has already examined the evolution of US case law in this area in Sri Indra Das vs State of Assam, thus only brief references to those instances will be made here. At the case of United States vs Eugene Frank Robel, it was decided that a member of a communist organisation could not be convicted of a crime just because he or she worked in a defence facility. Scales vs US highlighted this even more by distinguishing between active and passive member organisations. There must be "clear proof that the defendant specifically wants to achieve the organization's goals by resorting to violence" for there to be a crime. In Noto vs. United States, the court found that just teaching communist ideology, or even the moral imperative for violence, is not the same as training a group for violent action. A sufficiently strong and pervasive indication of a call to violence, either now or in the future, is required.

In DeJonge vs Oregon, the US Supreme Court's chief justice stated even more explicitly that the state could not punish a person making lawful speech simply because the speech was sponsored by a particular organisation, and in Bradenburg vs Ohio, it was established that advocacy of the use of force or breaking laws cannot be prohibited unless it incites or produces imminent violence.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Concept of constitutionalism

  Concept of constitutionalism Who Started Constitutionalism? John Locke - The English Bill of Rights is a foundational constitutional document that helped inspire the American Bill of Rights. Political theorist  John Locke  played a huge role in cementing the philosophy of constitutionalism.  Constitution is a written law which describes the structure of Government, the rules according to which the Govt. must work and the boundaries within which the Govt. must work. Constitutionalism   can be defined as the doctrine that governs the legitimacy of government action, and it implies something far more important than the idea of legality that requires official conduct to be in accordance with pre-fixed legal rules. Constitution constitution is the document that contains the basic and fundamental law of the nation, setting out the organization of the government and the principles of the society. Basic norm (or law) of the state; System of integration and organi...
Post a Comment
Read more