Q1 Charges and allegations[edit]

Aseem trivedi faced the serious allegations of insulting national emblem, Parliament, flag and constitution through
his anti corruption cartoons. In January 2012, a case of sedition (section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code) was filed
against him in Beed District Court, Maharashtra. Additional charges were brought against him by the Maharashtra
Police in Mumbai for insulting India's national symbols, under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper
Use) Act 2005. If found guilty of publishing cartoons in violation of this penal code Trivedi can face up to two years in
prison and a fine of up to 5,000 rupees (approx. $100). Banning cartoons and harassing cartoonists, though rare, is
not unheard of in India.

Q2In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend
toward insurrectionagainst the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of
a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion,
though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws
vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record
of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has
served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

Q3
The arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi on the serious charge of sedition has sparked a heated
debate in India: Is a sedition law even necessary?
Many observers believe it is an archaic law that needs to be scrapped, while the laws supporters
say its necessary to protect the nations integrity.
The sedition law, introduced by the British in India in 1870, outlaws speech that brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards,
the Government established by law in India. The penalty for running afoul of the statute: up to
life imprisonment.
One of the original motives of the law was to suppress the Indian rebellion against British
colonialists at a time when it was gaining momentum, Indian legal experts say. In Mr. Trivedis
case, it is being used to punish cartoons deemed insulting to the nation, including one that
replaces the four lions of the Indian national emblem with blood-hungry wolves and the
inscription Satyamev Jayate (truth alone prevails) with Bhrashtamev Jayate (corruption alone
prevails). Beyond sedition, Mr. Trivedi has also been accused of insulting national emblems and
violating Indias information technology law.
Over the years, several freedom fighters have been charged with sedition. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a
leading advocate of Indian self-rule, was charged with sedition on two occasions. In 1897, he was
charged for speeches that allegedly incited violence and resulted in the killings of two British
officers. Mr. Tilak was convicted but got bail in 1898. In another incident in 1909, he was

prosecuted for sedition for his newspaper writings. He maintained he was innocent but was
convicted and sent to jail for six years.
Sedition was a part of most of the political trials, says Arjun Dev, a historian.
Mahatma Gandhi, Indias most famous freedom fighter, was jailed for six years on sedition
charges because of the articles he wrote for a weekly journal, Young India, that challenged the
British government and asked Indians to stop serving it. However, Mr. Gandhi did not oppose the
verdict, saying it was a privilege to be charged with sedition. Mr. Gandhi said people should be
free to express their disaffection toward the government so long as they arent inciting violence.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Indias first prime minister after Independence from Britain, was one of the
fiercest critics of the law. During a parliamentary debate on free speech in 1951, he said the
sedition law is highly objectionable and obnoxiousthe sooner we get rid of it the better,
according to a summary ofthe debate in the Hindu newspaper.

More recently, Binayak Sen, a doctor and human rights activist, was found guilty of sedition and
sentenced to life imprisonment for his alleged links to Maoist rebels. He was later granted bail by
the Supreme Court of India because of lack of evidence.
2nd Assignment
q.1
The Judges also wonder at judicial system. Here is an appeal of the year 2013 which gets a quick hearing. In how many cases are we
doing so? That's why poor man feels that the system cares only for known persons and the unknown persons (common man) gets
ignored," a bench of justices H L Dattu and SJ Mukhopadhaya said on September 12 while dismissing the plea of former Haryana chief
minister Om Prakash Chautala.
Chautala, who is serving a ten-year jail term in the teacher recruitment scam, had sought extension of his interim bail.
Another bench of Justice B S Chauhan and Justice S A Bobde while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of IPS officer P P Pandey,
accused in Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case, on August 12 said: "We are sorry to say that the court's time is being used by senior
advocates and big criminals.
"We can say on oath that only 5 per cent of the time is being used for common citizens, whose appeals are waiting for 20 or 30 years.
This court has become a safe haven for big criminals. You come here for the sixth or eighth time for anticipatory bail and we should
hear as if we were a trial court."
The issue was first brought to the fore in December 2011 by a Delhi High Court judge S N Dhingra, who said: "criminal justice system
needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that
higher courts are kept occupied by the person with money or power, as is the case today".
Justice Dhingra issued an order that in all such cases where appellants are in jail and sentence is not suspended, courts should fix a
time limit for disposing of such appeals.
Lawyer Manish Khanna, who has been fighting for speedy trial for the poor, said: "It is a well know fact that hearing pattern in most
courts change when petitions of the rich and powerful come up. Senior advocates who appear for them get special attention."
Khanna, through an RTI query sought to know recently if the high court, after justice Dhingra's order put in place any policy on giving
speedy hearing to persons in jail and the reply he got was "issue under submission to the authorities".

Supreme Court demands 22 special courts to try politicians

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre how far its order on August 5 to set up 22 special CBI courts to try corruption cases
involving high-profile politicians and public servants has been implemented.
A bench noted in its order that "Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran frankly admits that the court's order has not been implemented".
It said details must be provided failing which it will summon senior officials from the states. Parasaran said there have been delays in
Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh but other states have stated that they will make the special courts functional by November.
In its August 5 order, the apex court had said: "Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are directed to
sanction creation and/or establishment of the remaining Additional Special Courts within a month."
"We further direct that all the 22 Additional Special Courts, for which the government of India had written to different state
governments/union territories, should be made effectively functional by the respective states and the administration of Union Territories,
by providing necessary infrastructure and provisions for budget.
"As far as manpower is concerned, law secretaries of state governments and Union Territories are directed to get in touch with the
administration of the respective high courts and ensure that suitable officers are made available for posting in the special courts within a
maximum period of two months," the order had said.
The CBI had told the court that out of 22 additional special courts, 15 have been sanctioned.
The Capital's Tihar jail is bursting at its seams with 13,253 prisoners - more than double its capacity of 6,250 inmates.
According to the prison's spokesperson Sunil Kumar Gupta, 75 per cent of the inmates are under-trials, many of whose appeals are yet
to be heard.
"There is no denying that such a high percentage of under-trials in a jail is a poor reflection of the state of affairs of the criminal justice
administration.
"It is a fact that the common man goes into the general queue as far as hearings for bail and appeal are concerned while the rich and
influential somehow manage priority hearings," said former Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi.
Lawyer and civil rights activist Colin Gonsalves said: "The rich and powerful hire high-profile lawyers.
"Their issues then automatically get precedence over the cases of poor man who may not even have a lawyer.
"Therefore, the cases of the rich end up getting exaggerated importance many times eating up lion's share of the court's time."

Q2 Salman

Hit-and-run case

On 28 September 2002, Khan was arrested for rash and negligent driving after his car ran into a bakery in Mumbai;
one person who was sleeping on the pavement outside the bakery died and three others were injured in the mishap.
[118]

Charges of culpable homicide were laid against him, but later dropped.[119] On 24 July 2013, he was formally

charged with culpable homicide in the case, to which he pleaded not guilty.
On 6 May 2015, Khan was found guilty of all charges in the case. The Bombay Sessions Court concluded that
Salman Khan was driving the car under the influence of alcohol causing the death of one and serious injury to four
homeless persons. Sessions judge DW Deshpande convicted the actor for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and sentenced him to five years in prison. Later on same day, Bombay High Court granted him

interim bail till 8 May 2015,[120][121][122] on which the court suspended his prison sentence until the final appeal hearing in
July.[123][124][125] His driver Ashok Singh, who had given the testimony that it was him who was driving the car at the time
of accident, was charged with perjury for misguiding the Court with false testimony and was arrested. [126] The
kidnapping and eventual death of prime witness Police Constable Ravindra Patilremains a mystery, with some
suspecting the involvement of organized crime

Indian Law

The law provides harsh penalties for hit and run, as the crime of leaving the scene of an accident
without exchanging information is known. The accident, being involuntary, is not a crime. The illegal
part is the failure to do what the law requires once an accident happens.
Depending on the severity of the accident, the runner could face felony charges. If, for example,
someone died or suffered a permanent, serious injury, the district attorney could charge a felony,
carrying a maximum punishment of four years in state prison.
Only such a charge would result in an extremely serious case. The vast majority of hit-and-run cases
involve only property damage and result in misdemeanor charges.
The way he got away with the bail it would have not been possible for others.
Jaya Lalita case

Disproportionate Assets case, 2014[edit]

See also: Disproportionate Asset case against Jayalalithaa
On 27 September 2014, Jayalalithaa was sentenced to four years in jail and fined Rs 100 crore by the Special Court
in Bangalore. She was convicted in an 18-year-old disproportionate assets case that was launched by Janata Party
President Subramanian Swamy (now member of Bharatiya Janata Party) on 20 August 1996 on the basis of Income
Tax Department report on her. Jayalalithaa's close aide Sasikala Natarajan, her niece Ilavarasi, her nephew and the
chief minister's disowned foster son Sudhakaran were also convicted. They were sentenced to four years in jail and
fined Rs 10 crores each. Special Judge John Michael D'Cunha convicted her to owning assets to the tune of Rs
66.65 crores (which includes 2,000 acres of land, 30 kg of gold and 12,000 saris) disproportionate to her known
sources of income during 1991-96 when she was chief minister for the first time. The verdict was delivered at a
makeshift court in the Parappana Agrahara prison complex in the presence of Jayalalithaa and the other accused.
She has automatically been disqualified from the post of CM and legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu and is the first
Indian chief minister to be disqualified.[56] O. Panneerselvam, a minister in her party, was succeeded as the Chief
Minister on 29 September 2014.[57] On 17 October 2014, Supreme Court granted two months bail and suspended
her sentence in Disproportionate Assets Case.They have to appeal the petition on or before 18th December 2014.
[58]

On May 11, 2015, a special Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court order convicting former

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and acquitted of all charges in the disproportionate assets case
Analysis

The entire country was shocked when the Karnataka High Court acquitted AIADMK chief Jayalalitha in the
Disproportionate Assets case. (DA Case). We analysed the high court judgement to understand where it
differed with the trial court. Here is a compilation of important areas of the judgement that led to the
acquittal.
Construction Activity undertaken by Jayalalitha & Other accused
The Karnataka High Court found fault with the way the cost for the construction activity was arrived at. The
high court said that the PWD (Public Works Department) rate of construction per one square of area (100 sq.ft)
was working out to Rs 31,580/-. Since this is the rate given to the contractor that accounts delays of payment
etc, for any normal construction this rate cannot be considered. Hence the court considered Rs 28,000/- as a
more plausible rate for arriving at the cost of construction. It also said that the cost of construction including
other facilities like lifts was highly inflated. It said, As per PWD itself, the construction cost per square will be
Rs.31,580.19/-. This is reasonably quite higher. The date of construction is during the check period. The
construction rate per square may be somewhere around Rs.28,000/-
Hence the total cost of construction was worked out to be slightly more than 5 crore rupees. This is
significantly less than what the trial court said to be the cost of construction which is close to 27.8 crore
rupees. The high court also accepted the contention of the accused that some construction activity was
undertaken by companies in which they had no stake.