- This topic has 16 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
RLeaving it vague has left both sides willing to take advantage of the vagueness and has lead to more conflicts than not.
If freedom of speech just means freedom to say whatever except where it offends public sentiment then it’s just a license to nod your head to and repeat what is already accepted. Which makes that article meaningless and pointless. I refuse to believe that the drafters of the constitution had this in mind
-
LIt can be anything depending on the judge and the lawyer. No wonder FOE in this country is a fucking joke.
-
-
UBecause it is not clear to the judges what morals or decency means, so when the case requires they consult the rule book.
-
-
UNAL
rule book: a book of rules. In this case, maybe constitution. assuming article 19 is an article in constitution.-
RArticle 19 is the centeral and only article that deals with freedom of speech. And well the problem is the article is very very vague
The text says that it can be limited by law for reasonable restrictions for the afformentioned grounds “decency ” and “morals” but these things aren’t defined anywhere
-
USo the judges have jurisdiction to define the contextual meaning of the words on a case by case basis.
Edit: Discretionary powers.
-
RI see. But there is a need to settle this matter to a substantial degree to prevent chilling effects. The fact that there aren’t even principles or guidelines on how to determine these terms is scary
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UYk, if you dont know the answer, wait for the ones who know, to answer. Blabbering anything can only get you to the parliament, nothing else.
-
-
RI might be wrong but isn’t this ruling because that’s literally how adultery is defined in the laws ? As in it requires an element of sexual intercourse. I think what she did is wrong too but idk if it’s wise to extend the law beyond its text unless the parliament amends it
-
UI don’t know either, but it is nevertheless indecent. Picture this (not imagine because its probably close to the situation of the case) wife of a man loves another man but doesn’t have sex. Is that decent or indecent? If it is not adultery is it not indecency? I am not supporting those jokers I stopped watching these “comedy” shows long ago, All i am saying is that judges are giving indecent verdicts. I didn’t say the verdict is against written law. Supreme Court struck down the law that criminalizes adultery is that a decent thing to do?
When court wants to give indecent verdict it hides behind “not in my hands, its written like this in law” when court doesn’t like a law stopping indecency (Adultery is a criminal offense law) they strike it down
>
**Adultery** was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code) until it was quashed by the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India) on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_law_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_law_in_India)
-
-
-
-
PIndia’s freedom of expression is not worth the paper it is written on. If you can not say anything that upsets someone then the “freedom “ becomes moot because you are only allowed to say things that others agree with you. Where is the freedom? If listening to this jokes make you don’t want to subscribe to the comedian that’s your prerogative and your choice to express. But issue is when government can file case against you on frivolous grounds. The restriction on speech and expression should be narrow and well defined.
-
