INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: Seeking a review of the Supreme Courts 2011 decision that held that mere membership of a banned organisation was not a crime and
only an active member could be prosecuted, the Centre on Tuesday informed the court that the verdict relied on judgments delivered by
American courts, which ought to not be blindly imported and invoked here.Appearing before a bench of Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar and
Sanjay Karol, lawyer basic Tushar Mehta sent that the court in its numerous judgments, some of them delivered by the constitution bench, had
actually held that the conditions in our country were quite various and the court need not rely on the American constitution and judgments
for the purpose of analyzing the 7 flexibilities consisted of in Article 19
He stated subscription of an unlawful/banned organisation could be developed or a reasoning drawn if materials connecting to the attire were
taken during investigation
Relying on numerous American judgments, the court in 2011 had actually held that mere subscription of a prohibited organisation would not
incriminate a person unless he resorted to violence or incited people to violence or did an act meant to produce disorder or disruption of
public peace by resort to violence
It had stated that American choices on the problem might be used to India also as our fundamental rights are similar to the Bill of Rights
in the United States Constitution
The government said the 2011 verdict was mistakenly chosen and active membership was not needed to be shown over and above subscription of
a banned clothing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to prosecute a person.Mehta stated, It is submitted that judgments in Raneef
supra and Arup Bhuyan supra were rendered without establishing the difference in the American position on complimentary speech and banned
organisations, and the Indian position on the very same
This court has specifically turned down the importing of the American doctrine on totally free speech and specifically turned down the said
importing in the context of determining criminality by way of 2 Constitution bench judgments, which were not even thought about by the
