Advocate Prakash Ambedkar who is the grandson of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the father of the Indian constitution has questioned the life imprisonment of Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik.
ALSO READ: Yasin Malik was adamant to not contest charges leveled against him: Amicus Curiae
Advocate Prakash, as quoted by India Today, said Yasin Malik has been convicted under the sections of the 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.
He said that the sub-clause 4 and sub-clause 7 of the stringent anti-terror law, UAPA 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.
Advocate Ambedkar said if there has been violence and if people are hurt due to it, 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, appealing the judiciary to examine what he is pointing out.