Hate speech Bill: Ready to provide clarification to Guv, says Home Minister
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Tuesday said the government is ready to provide any clarification to Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot on Hate Speech and Hate Crimes Prevention Bill awaiting his assent.
"We have already informed the Governor and have provided him with all kinds of explanations. If he seeks more clarification, then we will give that to him," Parameshwara told reporters here.
Explaining the bill, the minister said this is a bill that has been brought with foresight.
"It is against those who create confusion in society by making unwanted statements. Plus, there are fallouts of such statements. It impacts society. Hence, we brought the bill after discussing it extensively," he added.
ALSO READ: Karnataka Police crack ₹30 lakh gold theft case, one arrested
The minister said that while presenting the bill in the Assembly, he had explained it.
"The opposition BJP had opposed the bill. We have sent it to the Governor to pass it. He can ask for any clarification. We are ready to answer them," Parameshwara said.
According to the bill, any expression, which is made, published or circulated in words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, in public view, with an intention to cause injury, disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will against person alive or dead, class or group of persons or community, to meet any prejudicial interest, is hate speech.
The bill has a provision for a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh and a jail term of up to seven years.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC delivers split verdict on Section 17A of PC Act mandating sanction to probe govt servants
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of a 2018 provision of the anti-graft law which mandates prior sanction for initiating a probe against a government servant in a corruption case.
While Justice BV Nagarathna said Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down, Justice KV Viswanathan held the provision as constitutional while stressing on the need to protect honest officers.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority.
The top court's judgement came on a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) against the validity of amended section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act, forecloses inquiry and protects corrupt, Justice Nagarathna said.
ALSO READ: Snag hits Akasa Air Pune-Bengaluru flight ahead of departure; airline deplanes passengers
"Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken... The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Viswanathan said striking down section 17A will be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water and the “cure will be worse than the disease”.
"Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lokayukta of the State...
"The safeguard of this provision will strengthen the hands of honest officers but also ensure that the corrupt are brought to book. It will guarantee that the administrative machinery attracts the best talent for the service of the nation,"Justice Viswanathan said.
The case will now be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for forming a larger bench to hear the matter for a final decision.
"Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh," the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had argued that the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, which was the ‘competent authority’.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for the Union government.
