Sedition, offences against the state: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Sedition and the law (S.152 IPC) */

2025-06-08T20:15:45Z

‎Sedition and the law (S.152 IPC)

Jyoti: /* History */

2025-06-08T20:10:28Z

‎History

Jyoti: /* History */

2025-05-05T19:06:24Z

‎History

Jyoti: /* 2010-19 */

2022-08-28T06:58:47Z

‎2010-19

Jyoti: /* Use, abuse over the years */

2022-06-13T19:41:50Z

‎Use, abuse over the years

Jyoti: /* Use, abuse over the years */

2022-06-10T20:57:11Z

‎Use, abuse over the years

Jyoti at 20:56, 10 June 2022

2022-06-10T20:56:50Z

Jyoti: /* 2015 */

2022-06-07T22:10:47Z

‎2015

Jyoti: /* Romesh Thappar v State of Madras/ 1950 */

2022-05-13T07:18:06Z

‎Romesh Thappar v State of Madras/ 1950

Pdewan: /* Uttarakhand HC, 2020 */

2022-04-28T00:56:02Z

‎Uttarakhand HC, 2020

@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
  What 152 says & doesn’t | Section 152 criminalises committing or indulging in any act that excites “secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities,” or encourages “feelings of separatist activities,” or endangers the “sovereignty or unity and integrity of India”. At first glance, it appears to target serious threats. But unlike 124A as interpreted by courts, it does not require imminence , intent , or a concrete threat to public order.
-−
 The terms “subversive activities” and “separatist activities” are undefined, and distinction between committing and indulging in these acts is unclear – giving law enforcement wide discretion for its application.
 In a recent judgment in 2024, Rajasthan recognised this danger. It called Section 152 a rebranded form of sedition and ruled that it could only be applied when there was a direct and imminent connection to rebellionor secession, coupled with real intent. While this is a welcome move, it is telling that it is the courts that must once again intervene to correct legislative overreach.
@@ Line 215: / Line 215: @@
  What now? | This is a moment for political leadership and constitutional governance. Govts must demonstrate restraint by asking police to not invoke Section 152 indiscriminately – and not allow the section to criminalise speech that, while critical, isn’t subversive.  The writers are with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal
 =History=

@@ Line 188: / Line 188: @@
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
 SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]
 =History=
@@ Line 574: / Line 601: @@
 Obviously you will not use the grey/ last  paragraphs
 Don’t use graphic either
 [[Category:Crime|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA

@@ Line 190: / Line 190: @@
 =History=
 ==1951, Nehru’s dilemma To repeal the law or not==
 [https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/to-repeal-or-not-nehruvian-dilemma-on-sedition-law/650444.html  Satya Prakash, To repeal or not: Nehruvian dilemma on sedition law, September 10, 2018: ''The Tribune'']
@@ Line 519: / Line 574: @@
 Obviously you will not use the grey/ last  paragraphs
 Don’t use graphic either
 [[Category:Crime|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:58, 28 August 2022
Line 894:		Line 894:
	death of pluralism.”		death of pluralism.”

		+
		+
		+	==2014-19==
		+	'''233 slapped with sedition charge in 5 yrs'''
		+
		+
		+	At least 233 people were slapped with the charge of sedition for alleged antinational activities in the last five years, junior home minister G K Reddy informed the Rajya Sabha. He said as per NCRB, sedition charge under IPC section 124A was slapped against 70 people in 2018, 51in 2017, 35 in 2016, 30 in 2015 and 47 in 2014.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
		+	SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFE
		+	]]

	==2015==		==2015==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:41, 13 June 2022
Line 419:		Line 419:
	Clearly, scrapping the law would be a good beginning. "The sooner we get rid of it the better," Nehru had said. That was more than half-a-century ago.		Clearly, scrapping the law would be a good beginning. "The sooner we get rid of it the better," Nehru had said. That was more than half-a-century ago.

		+	===B===
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/from-nehru-to-now-how-governments-shifted-stand-on-sedition/articleshow/91492924.cms Prabhash K Dutta, May 11, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Sedition: From Nehru to now, how govts conveniently shifted stand on sedition \| India News - Times of India
		+	The word “sedition”, however, is nowhere mentioned in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is at the centre of this debate.
		+	Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested in 2012 for making caricatures that offended the government
		+
		+	''' What the law says '''
		+	IPC Section 124A reads, “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, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”
		+	India inherited this law from the British colonial rulers.
		+	1. Aseem Trivedi case is reason why sedition law needs to go
		+
		+	2. Sedition: Why does India follow a law that the world has junked?
		+
		+	3. India's best chance to strike down the sedition law is now
		+
		+	4. Will Supreme Court rid India of this cruel British legacy?
		+
		+	5. How to stop abuse of sedition law without repealing it
		+
		+	''' Birth of sedition '''
		+	Thomas Macaulay – the man who is credited with bringing English education to India – was the one who presided over the drafting of the IPC, which was enforced in 1860 against the backdrop of the Revolt of 1857. The sedition law, drafted by Macaulay, was not made a part of the IPC in the beginning, and introduced in India in 1870.
		+	Its immediate objective was to deal with the “increasing Wahabi activities” – an armed resistance inspired by Islamic clerics and posed a threat to the British colonial government.
		+	The British rulers viewed India differently. They were ruling over a nation and had a government of their own to run the administration. Those who saw discrimination by the British rulers and voiced their views against the government were seen as potential threat to their ‘raj’ (rule).
		+	Even to the British, sedition was a crime against the government, not the nation – either Indian or the British. They needed a law to protect their government in India. Its use was arbitrary and punitive. The tallest of freedom fighters including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were jailed for sedition by the British.
		+	''' After Independence '''
		+	The views of Mahatma Gandhi and India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, among others, set the tone for sedition law-free country. When the Constitution was adopted in 1950, it did not recognise sedition as a legal binding on the citizens.  Mahatma Gandhi ridiculed the sedition law calling it the “prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.
		+	Nehru called it “highly objectionable and obnoxious” which “should have no place in any body of laws that we might pass”. Nehru said, “The sooner we get rid of it the better.”
		+	''' Return of sedition law '''
		+
		+	When the Constitution was adopted, laws inconsistent with the protection given under the fundamental rights became void. But soon, newspapers and magazines began criticising the state and the central governments over a range of issues, including refugee influx and alleged political killings.
		+
		+	Courts such as the Bombay high court and the Patna high court gave verdicts against the governments and in favour of freedom of speech. Two important cases – filed by publications CrossRoads and Organiser – came before the Supreme Court, which pronounced judgment against the Nehru government in 1950 itself, a few months after the Constitution was adopted.
		+
		+	In 1951, Nehru moved the first amendment bill to prevent “abuse of freedom of speech and expression” guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. This brought back the sedition law in force in independent India.
		+
		+	''' The journey '''
		+
		+	Through successive governments and court judgments, the sedition law has survived. Two cases are considered landmarks. The first is known as the Kedar Nath Singh judgment of 1962.
		+	Kedar Nath Singh was a political leader in Bihar, where he told a rally in 1953, “The dogs of the CID [Criminal Investigation Department] are loitering around. We will strike and throw out these Congress goondas.”
		+
		+	A five-member Constitution bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law but added a rider that mere criticism of the government was not sedition. It requires an act of violence or planning of violence.
		+
		+	The second case was about raising anti-India pro-Khalistan slogans after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, in October 1984. Two public servants – Balwant Singh and Bhupinder Singh – allegedly raised slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”, “Raj Karega Khalsa” and “Hindustan Murdabad”.
		+
		+	In its 1995-judgment, the Supreme Court said raising slogans a couple of times by individuals alone did not amount to sedition. All these years, however, the government maintained that the sedition law was an essential tool to protect India’s unity and integrity.
		+	Climate activist Disha Ravi was arrested in Feb 2021 in connection with the Greta Thunberg 'toolkit' case
		+
		+	''' Law Commission reports '''
		+
		+	The Law Commission has examined the sedition law several times. From 1968 till 2017, most of its reports focused on making the sedition law effective. A break came in 2017, when it sought to differentiate between hate speech and sedition.
		+
		+	It said hate speech disturbs public peace directly and affects the State indirectly while sedition is a direct act of causing disaffection against the government. It said for an act to come under the crime of sedition, it must threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State.
		+
		+	Then in 2018, the Law Commission report called for a rethink on the sedition law. “Every irresponsible exercise of the right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious,” it said.
		+
		+	''' The current debate '''
		+
		+	Even the current debate on sedition has a decade-old beginning with the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi in 2012 for making caricatures that were considered bad in taste but offended the government. Two years later, 60 Kashmiri students were booked for sedition in Uttar Pradesh for raising slogans during a cricket match.
		+
		+	In 2016 – a few months after the February incident on Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus in which student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was booked for sedition, NGO Common Cause challenged the law in the Supreme Court. Its public interest litigation (PIL) sought necessary directions to the government and framing of guidelines to prevent the misuse of the sedition law.
		+	Student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was booked for sedition in 2016
		+
		+	While the plea remained before the Supreme Court, the Narendra Modi government stated its position inside and outside Parliament on the sedition law.
		+
		+	As the Modi government sought a fresh mandate in 2019, the then Union home minister Rajnath Singh told a rally, “The BJP will make sedition law more stringent if voted to power.” He criticised the Congress for promising to repeal it.
		+
		+	In Parliament, the government defended the law on multiple occasions – in July 2019, September 2020 and December 2021 – while the Supreme Court sought to know from it why the British-era law was not yet repealed.
		+
		+	In April this year, the Modi government sought more time from the Supreme Court before filing its replies in May. In its first affidavit, the government defended the sedition law last week. However, on May 9, the Centre said that in deference to PM Modi, the government would go for comprehensive review of the sedition law.
		+
		+	The government-led review is likely to be a long-drawn process. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hearing a bunch of petitions on May 11 put the IPC Section 124A on hold, effectively pausing the sedition law till the government makes up its mind. This means no fresh cases of sedition could be filed against somebody criticising the government in whichever manner without inciting violence.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
		+	SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFE
		+	]]

	==2022, May: SC puts Sec 124A on hold==		==2022, May: SC puts Sec 124A on hold==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 10 June 2022
Line 418:		Line 418:

	Clearly, scrapping the law would be a good beginning. "The sooner we get rid of it the better," Nehru had said. That was more than half-a-century ago.		Clearly, scrapping the law would be a good beginning. "The sooner we get rid of it the better," Nehru had said. That was more than half-a-century ago.
		+
		+
		+	==2022, May: SC puts Sec 124A on hold==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=12_05_2022_001_021_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, May 12, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	New Delhi: The Supreme Court virtually suspended operation of the much-misused 124-year-old sedition provision to stop police from invoking it against anyone from now on and stayed both probe and trial in existing sedition cases to allow the Centre to examine softening the rigour of Section 124A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to sync it with the present social milieu.
		+
		+	Not content with the Centre’s offer that in future no sedition FIR would be registered without prior approval of the area superintendent of police until the re-examination of the controversial provision had been completed, a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli in their unprecedented order said, “We expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the governments. ”
		+
		+	The apex court craftily couched its directions as its “expectations”, secure in the knowledge that these are seldom betrayed by the executive. While staying investigation, trial and appeal proceedings in existing sedition cases registered, the bench said, “If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned courts for appropriate relief. ”
		+
		+	It asked the courts to examine relief sought by arrested persons taking into account the SC order and the Centre’s unambiguous stand.
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	Obviously you will not use the grey/ last paragraphs
		+	Don’t use graphic either
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
		+	SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFE
		+	]]

	=Fundamental rights and sedition=		=Fundamental rights and sedition=

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |}
@@ Line 925: / Line 932: @@
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
 SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 7 June 2022
Line 788:		Line 788:

	`Offences against the state', which was listed by NCRB for the first time last year, include waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the government (Section 121of IPC), conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 (Section 121A) and collecting arms with intention of waging war against the government (Section 122), among others.		`Offences against the state', which was listed by NCRB for the first time last year, include waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the government (Section 121of IPC), conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 (Section 121A) and collecting arms with intention of waging war against the government (Section 122), among others.
		+
		+
		+	==2015-20==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=10_05_2022_007_009_cap_TOI Bharti.Jain, May 10, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: Persons arrested under the sedition law in 2018-20.jpg\|Persons arrested under the sedition law in 2018-20 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=10_05_2022_007_009_cap_TOI Bharti.Jain, May 10, 2022: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	New Delhi: A total 356 cases of sedition — as defined under Section 124A of IPC — were registered and 548 persons arrested between 2015 and 2020, according to statistics compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period.
		+	As many as 44 persons were arrested under the sedition law in 2020, as compared to 99 in 2019; 56 in 2018; 228 in 2017; 48 in 2016; and 73 in 2015. Total cases registered under Section 124A across the country were 73 in 2020; 93 in 2019; 70 in 2018; 51 in 2017; 35 in 2016 and 30 in 2015. The conviction rate of sedition cases was 33. 3% in 2020; 3. 3% in 2019; 15. 4% in 2018; 16. 7% in 2017 and 33. 3% in 2016.
		+	Interestingly, the home ministry appears to have hinted at an intent to review the sedition law (Section 124A) in 2021 itself. Then minister of state for home G Kishan Reddy had, in reply to a question in the Lok Sabha on March 16 last year as to whether the government proposed to scrap the present provisions of IPC concerning sedition, said, “Amendment of criminal law is a continuous process. ”
		+
		+	NCRB data on the age profile of persons arrested for sedition shows that 290 or 53% of total 548 persons arrested between 2015 and 2020 belonged to the 18-30 years group, while nearly 35% were in the 30-45 years bracket.
		+
		+	Over the last three years for which NCRB has published crime statistics (20182020), Assam recorded the highest arrests for sedition with 23 each in 2018 and 2019 and 10 in 2020. The other states which showed most arrests under Section 124A of IPC were Andhra Pradesh (15), Madhya Pradesh (4) and Chhattisgarh (3) in 2018; Karnataka (18), Nagaland (11) and UP (9) in 2019; and UP (8), Nagaland (7) and Karnataka (6) in 2020. In 2020, Manipur had the most sedition cases (15), followed by Assam (12), Karnataka (8) and UP (7).
		+
		+	The home ministry is in the midst of a massive consultation exercise with all stakeholders ahead of a comprehensive review of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Evidence Act to weed out archaic provisions and make the laws relevant to the present times.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|S SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
		+	SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIA
		+	SEDITION, OFFE]]

	== 2016 ==		== 2016 ==

@@ Line 490: / Line 490: @@
 Ideally, this judgment should put to rest all doubts about when concerns around disturbance to public order would warrant restrictions on the freedom of expression. Yet, 71 years after this judgment, sedition continues to remain a punishable offence in India, and is invoked frequently as a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. The slightest apprehension of disturbance to public order cannot warrant restraint on this freedom. If that were to be the case, democracy would have a tough time flourishing in India.
 This piece has been compiled by Sruthakeerthy Sriram, Research Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
 [[Category:India|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
 ]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|ISEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION AND THE LAW: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE: INDIASEDITION, OFFENCES AGAI
 ]]
 === SC, 2016===
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Mere-criticism-of-govt-or-policies-not-sedition-06092016001102 ''The Times of India''], Sep 06 2016

@@ Line 612: / Line 612: @@
-=== Uttarakhand HC, 2020 ===
+== Uttarakhand HC, 2020 ==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2020%2F10%2F29&entity=Ar01602&sk=53599FA7&mode=text  Kautilya Singh & Prashant Jha, October 29, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 625: / Line 625: @@
 Sharma had alleged that bribe money was deposited into the bank accounts of the CM’s close relatives and associates during demonetisation in 2016. The allegation was that the money was paid by a Ranchi-based individual Amratesh Chauhan as part of a deal with Rawat to facilitate his appointment as chairman of Gau Seva Aayog of Jharkhand. CM Rawat said he is “open to investigation”.
 = Sedition cases/ Offences against the state registered in=