.jpg)
Hitakshi Ghai
Although innovation is not Hitakshi’s only passion, it certainly is one that most drives her career. Hitakshi sees innovation as “the engine behind 10,000 years of human development”, and she sees her role as keeping that engine well-fueled. Hitakshi is a new fish in the sea of corporate law who focuses on having great command over her negotiating skills and communication, with a keen interest in legal research. This inevitably gave her the opportunity to graduate from Birmingham City University, England (LLB Hons) and conduct research during the internship period with Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas. Proving herself as an aficionado of basketball at state and national levels, Hitakshi has also excelled in Fit-in Deutsch 1 and 2.
More From The Author >>SC Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Farooq Abdullah for Views on Article 370
Before dismissing the petition, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta stated that expressing views that are different from the opinion of the government does not fall under the preview of sedition.
Photo Credit : File photo of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah. | Tauseef Mustafa/ AFP,
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that disagreeing with the views and policies of the government won’t attract the offence of sedition. It rejected a petition seeking action against Farooq Abdullah, former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister as he expressed his views on the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution (Rajat Sharma v. Union of India).
In the plea filed by Rajat Sharma and Dr Neh Srivastava, it was alleged that Abdullah made a live statement declaring that he would take help from China for restoring Article 370. They also alleged that Abdullah is trying to “hand over” Kashmir to China so, he should be prosecuted for sedition under section 124A of IPC.
Before dismissing the petition, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta stated that expressing views that are different from the opinion of the government does not fall under the preview of sedition. The petitioners were fined Rs 50,000 for failing to prove the allegations.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house
