Mangaluru city police launches dedicated web portal, mobile app

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.

Feb 25: Two Customs Preventive officers allegedly involved in gold smuggling cases in Kerala were removed from service, a top official said in Kochi on Monday.

Sumit Kumar, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kochi, said that he took action against Radhakrishnan B, Superintendent of Customs, and Rahul, Inspector of Customs, who were allegedly involved in gold smuggling cases in the state.

Radhakrishnan was involved in attempted smuggling of gold weighing 24998.61 grams having a market value of over Rs 8 crore through Thiruvananthapuram international airport on May 13, 2019, Kumar said.

Rahul was involved in attempted smuggling of gold weighing 11,035.54 grams valued at over Rs 4 crore through international airport on August 19, 2019, the Customs Commissioner added.

Radhakrishnan is currently lodged in Central prison, Thiruvananthapuram after the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau under the Union Finance Ministry issued detention order under COFEPOSA (Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974).

Rahul, against whom detention order under COFEPOSA was issued, is absconding.

"Two Customs officers of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Kochi, who were involved in gold smuggling cases were removed from service by Sumit Kumar, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin," an official release said.

Kumar said that both the cases were booked and investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and while show cause notice under Customs Act 1962 has been issued against Radhakrishnan, investigation is under progress in the other case.

"Both the officers were removed from service, after due process of law under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965," the release said.