New Delhi: Prakash Ambedkar, the president of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi party and the grandson of Bharat Ratna Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, has questioned the life imprisonment of Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) sections.
Advocate Prakash said Yasin Malik has been convicted under those sections of the stringent UAPA Act which are supposed to be non-existent. Section 124(1) and 124(A), the sedition law which is a colonial law, has been done away with in England by the Lords and House of Commons.
The activist said sub-clause 4 and sub-clause 7 of the stringent anti-terror law had been deleted by the 44th amendment by the parliament so there is no sub-clause 4 or sub-clause 7. The first provision mentions what comes under prevention and detention and Section 7 prescribes the punishment.
When these two sub-clauses are not there in the constitution, the Prevention Act of 1967 itself is set aside by the parliament and it cannot be implemented by any court of law as the law does not exist, he said.
When asked what will happen to the culprits who took part in the violence wherein so many people lost their lives and JKLF chief has been convicted for it, Prakash Ambedkar said it is not only in Kashmir but the rest of India saw many deaths, too many deaths from bomb blasts.
Whether these blasts have been carried out by Indians or those from outside needs to be investigated and the court will decide the punishment.
Advocate Ambedkar said if there has been violence and if people are hurt due to this violence, then there are sections under the Indian Penal Code wherein one can be held responsible.
Today there is no law on preventive detention, he said. So he has appealed to the judiciary to examine what he is pointing out.