Are our penal Code/CrPC obsolete?

Are our Penal Code and Criminal Procedure out-dated?

The Court had taken cognizance of the offences of defiance against Arunditi Roy and others for their speeches made in a Seminar “Azadi: The Only Way” wherein the noted writer is stated to have strongly opined on the alleged military excesses in Kashmir. On the basis of a Compliant filed under Sec 156(3) of the Cr PC at the Tilak Marg Police Station against the writer Arunditi Roy, Syed Geelani, Varavara Rao, SAR Geelani and some others who made speeches which were anti-Indian Statements when no action was taken by the Police Station, the case was brought before the Metropolitan Magistrate who asked Police to book the culprits under the relevant Criminal procedure Code and file cases against them in a competent Court of Law, after examining the documents produced before him.
Sec 156 of the Cr P C, 1973 states:

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.

Union Law Minister M Veerappa Moily slammed Roy’s speech as “unfortunate” and said "Freedom of speech cannot violate the patriotic sentiments of the people and country.” The government maintains that peacefully making pro-Azadi speeches does not amount to sedition but inciting hatred through inflammatory oratory in an already emotionally charged atmosphere in the Valley may lead to violence. However, when the Police filed a report in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court that the speeches were not inflammatory and no offence under sedition could be made out, the Magistrate who had seen the documents chided the Police for filing a wrong report.

Act of Sedition appears in Chapter VI of First Schedule (Offence against the State) which is a cognizable non bailable offence that is defined in Sec 124 (A) of IPC. The law defines Section 124A of IPC as “whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India can be booked under sedition.”
In today’s Hindu, (Nov 28, 2010) Arundhati Roy has described the various wordings of Jawaharlal Nehru, which she characterized as amounting to sedition. In his statement in the Security Council (in the 765th meeting of SC on 24 January 1957), Shri V K Krishna Menon committed that India believed in honouring international commitments and obligations it has undertaken.
Perhaps, Arundhati might be referring to the agreements, both oral and written that were arrived at regarding partition of India into India and Pakistan. Hindu majority regions which had a Muslim King, would decide for it whether it would cede to India or Pakistan. Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir had identical problems. Junagadh was a Hindu territory with Muslim King, Hyderabad ditto, while Kashmir had a Hindu King. The case of Kashmir was different in so much that the Pakistan army inflicted a military attack, and to defend the Country, the Maharaja of Kashmir, through an act of accession, acceded to India with a signed Instrument of Accession. He asked India’s help to repulse the invaders. Once this was done, the Pakistan army was repulsed, even though they occupy a chunk of land in Azad Kashmir or what is called as Pakistan occupied Kashmir, even today. Pakistan was West Pakistan and East Pakistan(14 August 1947). Today, East Pakistan is ruled by its own people and ceded from Pakistan and became Bangladesh. Therefore, when there was an aggression, and Pakistan started it, they jumped the gun, and today, they have no locus standi in any part of Kashmir. They have waged innumerable Wars with India. The unrest in Kashmir is largely due to the broad propaganda of the jihad leaders. To say that there is wanton attack on Indian soil, the military should keep quiet cannot be termed as a genuine freedom of expression.
It is true, that the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi was tried for Sedition in 1922; then the Mahatma had said “Section 124 A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”

In his trial Gandhi has clearly stated that if one had “no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence.”
“Some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section,” he said.
Is this Section deterring free speech, guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution? Activists argue that sedition cases rarely stand in a court of law and that there should be clear demarcation between offences committed by cross-border terrorists opening fire on innocent citizens and citizens voicing dissatisfaction with governance. They should not fall under the purview of one common law.
Social activists have slammed Section 124A as “draconian”, pitching for freedom of speech and expression in a non-military state. The draconian laws should it remain in a sovereign, democratic Republic Statute?
The damage done to Tata through the release of Nira Radira tapes selectively is another infringement and consequently, the Right to Life which includes Right to privacy, had been breached in a callous manner. How did the Income Tax tapes come into the possession of ordinary people and electronic media already tainted for their role in the 1.73 lakh Cr pilferage? I think the Rights of the people are supreme. If the purpose of the IT department was to unearth fraudulent deeds, they should undertake to do that, and not leak sensitive tapes selectively. The Supreme Court should get into the nexus, culpability must be fixed. Guilty must be given deterrent punishment.

It is high time, we need to update our penal Code and Criminal procedure Code. We are a sovereign independent Republic. The people of India are Supreme in India. For it is the “People of India who gave unto ourselves the Constitution of India”.

*************