4 ms·
It wasn't a dissenting view, it was the court opinion. And citing events from before that precedent isn't so relevant to today's laws.
by will4274 6y ago
It wasn't a dissenting view, it was the court opinion. And citing events from before that precedent isn't so relevant to today's laws.
- Barrin92 6y agoIn that case, the wikipedia article also gives examples follwing that opinion >On 20 September 2016, a blogger named Tarak Biswas was arrested for criticising Islam under Section 295A and 298, besides 66, 67 and 67A of the IT Act after a complaint about hurting religious sentiments was lodged by Sanaullah Khan, a Trinamool Congress leader.[39] On 25 February 2018, two people were arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath, and Hindu gods. Four people were booked under section 295-A.[40] Contrary to what you seem to believe a single decision in 2014 has shockingly enough not upended India's entire framework on legislating hate speech, that is not how the law works.
- will4274 6y agoAre India's high court precedents not binding? It's certainly how law works in the United States that when the high court rules that a law violates the constitution, that law is struck.