The LHC overturns the “sedition” law.
The “sedition” law, Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860, was declared invalid by Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court for violating the Constitution.
The adjudicator proclaimed the decision which he had saved resulting to hearing bare essential conflicts on different petitions.
The petitioners had requested that the law be struck down, arguing that it not only violated the Constitution but also its “real essence.”
The federation’s lawyers argued that this section dealt with “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 disapproval towards, the federal or provincial government established by law shall be punished.” The petitioners’ arguments were vigorously opposed by the lawyers.
They went on to say that Section 124-A of the PPC was used in accordance with the law to stop people from doing these things.
The petitioners’ lawyers, on the other hand, argued that applying this section would violate the people’s fundamental right to free speech.
“The instant petition calls in question the constitutionality, validity, reasonability, relevance, and legitimacy of Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes “Sedition,” was the statement that was included in one of the pleas.
“It is most respectfully submitted that Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is an unconstitutional law and ultra vires [of the] Constitution as [it] brazenly and patently contravenes Articles 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19 & 19-A of the Constitution,” reads the remainder of the statement.
In addition, Pakistan was accused in the petition of recklessly exploiting the sedition law, also known as Section 124-A of the PPC, since 1947 to limit the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.
“Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is an illegitimate limitation and restriction on the legitimate, legal, and lawful exercise of the right of free speech and expression (in particular) and a variety of other constitutional freedoms (in general),” the plea read.
Over the course of the past few years, a number of activists, journalists, and politicians have been detained in accordance with Section 124-A of the PPC.
Every day, there are more and more FIRs filed in accordance with Section 124-A.
The people of Pakistan have suffered greatly as a result of Section 124-A’s definition of nearly every criticism of the government or any state institution as a crime.
In a nutshell, the plea argued that dissent, free speech, and criticism were being suppressed in a Pakistan that was “free and independent.”
Haroon Farooq, the petitioner, mentioned a few legislators who are currently facing charges of sedition, including PTI leader Shahbaz Gill, tribal district MNAs Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir, and numerous prominent journalists and civil rights activists.
The candidates argued that the majority of these cases were politically motivated, based on vague, ambiguous, and ambiguous charges, and based on their emotional comprehension of how the police dealt with subversion.
In accordance with Article 8 of the Constitution, they requested that the court declare Section 124-A ultra-vires.
They claimed that it was incompatible with the Constitution’s Articles 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19A, which outline fundamental rights.
“The respondents may kindly be restrained from registering any FIRs, or undertaking any coercive measure in sedition cases under Section 124-A [of the] PPC] in the interim and during pendency of the instant petition,” were the words that followed the plea’s conclusion.
