Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

Arun Jaitley v. Sate of U.P. - (High Court of Allahabad) (05 Nov 2015)

Allahabad High Court ends sedition proceedings against Arun Jaitley

Criminal

In a strongly worded judgment the Allahabad High Court quashed sedition proceedings against Union Minister Arun Jaitley, terming the Magistrate’s finding of jurisdiction an “assumption” and “fail[ing] to adhere to the principles laid down”. It reiterated that the article by Mr. Jaitley, ‘NJAC Judgment-An Alternative View’, was a mere voicing of opinion and not a call to arms. As such, Sections 124A or 505 of the Indian Penal Code (regarding sedition and statements conducing to public mischief, respectively) were inapplicable to the ‘offence’.

Relevant : Read the decision in Arun Jaitley v. Sate of U.P. (Note: Requires filling out a security code)

Tags : SEDITION   ARUN JAITLEY   ARTICLE   OPINION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved