Section 144 IPC The Code of Criminal Procedure

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC ) is the principal enactment on the procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was established in 1973 and came into power on 1 April 1974.

It gives the machinery to the examination of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, gathering of evidence, assurance of guilt or innocence of the accused individual and the determination of punishment of the guilty. Furthermore, it additionally deals with open public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child, and parents.

What is Section 144 IPC

Section 144 of the Criminal Code Procedure states the power to issue an order in dire instances of nuisance or apprehended risk.

As indicated by 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the maximum punishment for engaging for taking part in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for 3 years or/and fine. Each individual from an unlawful assembly can be considered responsible for wrongdoing committed by the group. Blocking an officer attempting to disperse an unlawful gathering may pull in further punishment.

In about 1861, Officer Raj-Ratna E.F. Deboo IPS were the creator and draftsman of section 144, which lessened by and large crime in that time in the state of Baroda. He was perceived for his drive and granted a gold medal by the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda for setting up Section 144 and lessening by and large crime rate.

The section was imposed for the first time in 1861 by the British Raj, and thereafter turned into a critical instrument to stop every single nationalist protest amid the Indian freedom movement, and its utilization in independent India stays controversial as not much has changed. Usually used to avert freedom of expression by quiet protests or demonstrations, even the law does not utilize the terms, however, it mentions “riot”. Section 144 applies amid mobs and election continuing after the announcement of the election.

144 Section Rules and Conditions

(1) In situations where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or some other Executive Magistrate exceptionally enabled by the State Government for this sake, there is adequate ground for continuing under this section and prompt prevention or speedy remedy is alluring, such Magistrate may, by a written order expressing the material facts of the case and served in the way given by section 134, guide any individual to abstain from a specific act or to take certain order concerning certain property in his ownership or under his management, if such Magistrate thinks about that such course is probably going to prevent, or will in general avert, deterrent, inconvenience or damage to any individual lawfully employed, or threat to human life, health or security, or disturbance of public peacefulness, or an uproar, or an affray.

(2) An order under this section may, in instances of crisis or in situations where the conditions don’t concede to the serving in due time of a notice upon the individual against whom the order is coordinated, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section might be coordinated to a specific individual, or to people dwelling in a specific place or area, or to the general population by and large when frequenting or visiting a specific place or area.

(4) No order under this section will stay in power for over two months from the creation thereof: Provided that, if the State Government thinks so to improve the situation preventing peril to human life, health or security or for keeping an uproar or any affray, it might, by notification, coordinate that an order made by a Magistrate under this section will stay in force for such further period not surpassing a half year from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, yet for such order, lapsed, as it might determine in the said notification.

(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.

(6) The State Government may, either on its own or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal or change any order made by it under the stipulation to subsection (4).

(7) Where an application under subsection (5) or subsection (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, by and large, will bear to the applicant an early chance of showing up before him or it, either face to face or by pleader and indicating cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, all things considered, rejects the application completely or to a limited extent, he or it will record in writing the reasons behind so doing.

Who enforces Section 144 IPC

The orders for Imposing section 144 have been given to Executive Magistrate when there is a crisis situation.

Limitations enforced when Sec 144 IPC is imposed

• The urgency of the circumstance and the power is to be utilized for keeping up public harmony and peace.
• Private rights might be temporarily superseded when there is a contention between public interest and private rights
• Questions of title to properties or entitlements to rights or disputes of civil nature are not open for adjudication in a procedure under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code.

How the requests of Sec 144 should be passed?

It must be in written form. Prior to enforcing Section 144, Executive Magistrate needs to guarantee whether there is a need to enforce section 144. For this, he/she have to request material facts.

Duration of Order

• Section 144 would be valid just for a time of two months.
• The state government can expand the validity for two months and maximum up to a half year.
• It can be withdrawn any time of time if the circumstance turns normal.

Section 144 IPC at Kerala

The Pathanamthitta district authority in Kerala has forced Section 144 of the CrPC in Sabarimala and close-by regions ahead of the Chithira Avittom Pooja. The hill shrine in Sabarimala was opened for devotees on November 5 and 6. Prohibitory orders will be set up until November 26.
In the wake of violent protest amid the last monthly pooja, the state police have likewise chosen to increase deployment of forces in Sabarimala area.
Then again, state police keep on taking action against protesters in Pamba and Nilakkal. As per the most recent data, 3,701 individuals have been captured in 543 cases by the police.

At the point when the temple was opened for devotees, at least five ladies attempted to visit the main place of worship. In any case, owing to huge protests at the temple and the police’s failure to give adequate security, the ladies couldn’t enter the shrine.

In conclusion, the article aimed at discovering all the aspects of Section 144 of the CrPC. This Section can be misused at times for political gains and can restrain the freedom of movement of people. Therefore, this section before being imposed should be deliberated upon and if imposed, it should be done with the utmost care and precision.

Never Underestimate The Influence Of Criminal Provision Of Defamation – Section 499 And 500 Of IPC

Defamation is an oral or written statement that injures someone’s reputation. Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC deals with the defamation as an offense. It is considered as the statement of fact, which is unprivileged and not true, that must harm someone’s reputation, either by spoken or written, and the same must be published before the third party. The term Defamation covers mainly the false allegation or communication, which tarnished the reputation or decreased the respect that they hold in the society at large. Written defamation is known as “libel,” which is also considered as the permanent form of the defamation,  while spoken defamation is known as “slander.” Both forms of defamation, i.e., libel and slander, derive its origins from English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence.

Every person has a right to have his reputation preserved free from the violation. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of each and every person as part of the right of personal security under article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considered as one of the most important natural rights. An affection towards reputation inspires people to do great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of life in every walk of life. The main objective of the provision of the defamation is to protect one’s reputation, honor, and integrity in society.

Defamation in India at present

In India, defamation can be seen as both Civil as well as criminal offenses. The Sufferer or the person who got defamed is offered a legal remedy in both civil as well as criminal. In civil law, the remedy is covered under the Law of Torts where sufferer or victim may go to High Court or any subordinate courts for compensation or damages in monetary form and c, Section 499 provides the definition of “Defamation” and  legal remedy which is the punishment of simple imprisonment which may exceed up to 2 years or Fine or Both, defined under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862.

Section 499 of the IPC defined as

A person or anyone, by his words either spoken or  which shown as a clear intention to be read, or by signature or by any kind of representations which is visible, makes or publishes any charges or allegation which refers any person, intending to harm, or  have knowledge or having a reason to make believe that these kinds of allegation will harm, the reputation or dignity of such person, is to be understood by, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person.

The section further goes on to provide some other vital explanation to determine what would create or constitute defamation. Defamation under the IPC may constitute an imputation of a deceased person that would harm the reputation of that person if he is alive and showing clear intention which may be hurtful to the feelings and emotions of their family or any other relatives. It may also amount to defamation to make an imputation refers to an association or company or any collection of persons as such.

The Section however also state that no imputation is said to injures a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the respected character or moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of their caste or of their calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a disgusting state, or a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 499 of the IPC also explain some exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is essentially required for the “welfare of the public” and thus has to be published, on conduct of government officials which involves public duty, the act of any person touching any public question and merits of the public performance, if someone publishes reports of proceedings of Courts, merits of the case decided in Court of law or act and conduct of witnesses and others concerned with, etc.

Defamation under section 499 and Section 500 IPC vs. Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a): –

The law of the defamation is not punishable in many countries or as we can understand by the way that defamation laws are not criminal laws in some countries of the world, for that the same reason a renowned lawyer-politician Mr. Subramanian Swamy along with several other petitioners (Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Kejriwal, etc.) came together to challenge the constitutionality of criminal defamation, i.e., (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) before the apex court i.e., Supreme Court.

 a)- Reason behind the Criminal Provision of Defamation (u/s 499/500) was challenged: –

The basic reason was that it was an unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally-guaranteed Right, i.e., Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives us the Right to sue for Defamation if  the person’s reputation was damaged or intended to damage by any other, and the petitioner challenged this on the ground that this was prima facie infringement of Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).

 b)- Some of the arguments that why this criminal provision of defamation(u/s 499/500) must declare unconstitutionally: –

Firstly, Criminal provision of the defamation (u/s 499/500) do not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on speech, and even truth is not an exact defense because the defense only works when the statement is for the public good, which is a question of fact by the court. This could be arbitrary because Instead of making the plaintiff prove that the accused made a false statement, section 499 gives the accused the burden of proving that the statement was not only true but also for the welfare of the public at large.

Secondly, mere on the allegation, a magistrate may issue criminal process that the accused conspired with the person who actually made the allegedly defamatory written statements, also  a criminal suit u/s 499 can be filed even for speech given by the political leaders, which is considered as the most protected speech to sustain democracy.

Lastly, there is also an argument that it is not clear even why the criminal provision of defamation has existed because petitioners are in the opinion that civil remedy is more than sufficient for that.

 c)- Court Held: –

However,  the apex court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation (u/s 499/500) and its constitutional validity. The judgment delivered on May 13, 2016, by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India (“Judgement“) was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, with Justice Prafulla C. Pant. The Judgment in the case started by analyzing the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’, and their interaction of these terms with the right of the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The reputation of an individual must be secured as it was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which is a very important aspect of the constitutionally protected right to life under article 21 of COI. Also, Defamation, in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article (19)(1)(a)  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Judgement also recognizes principles of reasonable restriction are that the restrictions which should serve the interest of public and should not be excessive; and held that reputation of an individual is a basic element enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

In addition, the court also emphasize for upholding the validity of the criminal defamation is online defamation, in the age of the Internet it can be effectively countered only by making it a criminal offense, and this particular law is concerning part of the state’s “compelling interest” to protect the dignity and reputation of citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court holds that this criminal provision of defamation is not disproportionate. The reasonableness and its proportionality of a restriction are examined from the standpoint of the interest of the general public, and not from the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. Applying this, the Court adjudged that criminal defamation law (u/s 499/500) to be proportionate. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition which challenges the constitutionality of the criminal provision of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 A person is bound to allow the existence of something that one may dislike or disagrees within other words -criticism, dissent, and discordance, but not expected to tolerate a rush which may tarnish the reputation of that person. (SC in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India [AIR 2016 SC 2728]  ).

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help and service.

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.