PESHAWAR
Chairman, Amun Taraqqi Party (ATP) Muhammad Faiq Shah welcomed the repealing of article 124 of the Criminal Law, as the superior court declared it a conflict with the constitution of the country.
He called the annulment of sedition law a victory for free speech.
Shah in a statement issued here on Saturday expressed his appreciation for the Lahore High Court’s decision, describing it as “excellent, much-needed, and long overdue”.
It is noted to mention here that in recognition of the constitutional right to critique public institutions, the Lahore High Court ruled that Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, which constituted the sedition law, violates the Constitution.
Faiq praised the LHC for its decision, stating that it is high time for Pakistan to rid itself of undemocratic and draconian colonial laws that were left behind by the British.
The ATP chief emphasised the importance of abandoning all laws that curtail fundamental rights and embracing a democratic culture in Pakistan.
The sedition law has already been used for undermining the democracy and democratic forces, especially misused as a tool to harass journalists and activists, he opined.
The party chief congratulated the all democratic-link minded and constitution-friendly people for abolishing the Section 124-A of sedition law.
He went on to say that the constitution of the country has granted the right to freedom of expression to every citizen of the state.
This black law was used, especially in dictators’ era against the political opponents, Shah remarked.
The ATP chairman there is no room for such clauses of the constitution and law of any civilized society and state in 21st century.
He maintained that it is completely contradictory to fundamental human rights to impose sedition clauses on political differences grounds.
Shah urged the parliament to thoroughly review all such laws in order to halt violation of basic human rights.
The LHC invalidated Section 124-A of the PPC which pertains to the crime of sedition or inciting “disaffection” against the government, terming it inconsistent with the Constitution.
