Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal refused on Saturday to grant permission for the commencement of criminal proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court (SC) against Digvijaya Singh, a member of the Congress of Parliament (MP) and a former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh (MP), for his two “unsolicited” tweets.
In one of his tweets, Singh had criticized the government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) for introducing the Special Security Force (SSF) Act of 2020, and another for expressing doubts about whether a court would repeal the law.
Venugopal wrote to defend Sudan from Sudan and agreed that the tweets were unjustified, but did not merit any action for criminal contempt of the SC.
“I have paid a lot of attention to the tweets. The statements made are unjustified. However, I do not think they warrant an action for criminal contempt of the CS of India, “Venugopal said in his letter.
The SSF Law, 2020 empowers the UP government to establish a special security force for the better protection of people, their residential premises and vital and strategic facilities belonging to the state.
Read also: UP Assembly Elections: Congress appoints candidates for the Suar and Bangarmau seats
The law had been the subject of attention for its provisions, which give the special security force broad powers.
Article 10 of the law empowers the special security force to arrest any person without an arrest warrant if the person is suspected of having links to a recognizable crime in connection with the notified establishments or if the authorities have reason to believe that you are taking steps to commit it. an offense.
Article 11 of the law empowers the special security force to detain the person and confiscate their belongings without a court order.
Does the Constitution of India allow such a law? Will the judicial branch of the country consider this law unconstitutional? Or will it decide in favor of the government under pressure? Let’s wait and see, ”Singh tweeted.
The tweet has the potential to shake the general public’s faith in the country’s judicial process, Sudan had said in its guilty plea seeking AG’s consent to initiate criminal contempt of SC against Singh.
According to Section 15 of the Law of Contempt of Courts and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of SC, the consent of the AG or the Attorney General (SG) is required before the higher court can hear a declaration of criminal contempt filed by an individual.
Previously, Venugopal had refused to consent to the initiation of criminal contempt of the SC against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai and actor Swara Bhaskar.
The contempt action was sought from Sardesai for his tweets in which he criticized the SC’s handling of the contempt of court case against lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan.
Similar action was requested against Bhasker for his tweets criticizing the SC and his ruling in the Ayodhya case on November 9, 2019.
Venugopal’s stance before the Supreme Court in the contempt of court case against lawyer Bhushan was noteworthy, as the Center’s chief legal officer had urged the higher court not to impose any punishment on the lawyer.
Venugopal had appeared in that case in his personal capacity at the request of the higher court on 20 August.
He had asked the SC to let Bhushan go with a reprimand.
.
