Gag ordinance brought to kill democracy, observes High Court | jaipur | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 21, 2018-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Gag ordinance brought to kill democracy, observes High Court

A division bench of Justices Govind Mathur and Vinit kumar Mathur was hearing a petition challenging the validity of the ordinance, which prohibits probe without prior sanction of the government against a judge, magistrate or a public servant while discharging official duties.

jaipur Updated: Nov 07, 2017 20:34 IST
HT Correspondent
The ordinance, notified on September 7, 2017, also bars the media from reporting on the accused until prosecution sanction is given by the authority, which may take up to six months.
The ordinance, notified on September 7, 2017, also bars the media from reporting on the accused until prosecution sanction is given by the authority, which may take up to six months.(HT FILE)

In a severe indictment, the Rajasthan High Court Tuesday observed that the Criminal Law (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance-2017 notified by the Rajasthan government was “brought in to kill democracy.”

A division bench of Justices Govind Mathur and Vinit kumar Mathur was hearing a petition challenging the validity of the ordinance, which prohibits probe without prior sanction of the government against a judge, magistrate or a public servant while discharging official duties. The ordinance, notified on September 7, 2017, also bars the media from reporting on the accused until prosecution sanction is given by the authority, which may take up to six months.

Hearing the petition filed by Azaz Aehmad, the court directed the state government to file a reply by November 17.

The ordinance will remain in force until December 4.

Earlier, appearing for the government, Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar told the court that petitions challenging this ordinance were also pending with the Jaipur Bench of the High Court. Stating that the next hearing of those petitions was scheduled on November 27, Panwar sought time to submit the reply by December 5.

Rejecting the contention, the court said, “We want to know under what circumstances, the government was forced to issue such an ordinance.” The court refused to give more time.